Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:00:22.348Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Choice Correspondences*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Nick Baigent
Get access

Extract

An Arrowian social welfare function is single-valued. That is, to any set of individual orderings a social welfare function assigns one, and only one, social ordering. While other features of the Arrowian framework have given rise to a huge volume of literature, single-valuedness does not seem to have attracted any attention at all and, on the face of it, this may seem hardly surprising. After all, given that social choice is to depend on a binary relation of social preference (or what has been called a relational procedure in Sen (1977)), single-valuedness seems natural and unobjectionable. Furthermore, it is not clear that anything can be gained by relaxing it. However, the question of single-valuedness and its implications is not quite so simple.

Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 125 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 1980 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank all participants at the following seminars at which versions of this paper were given : University College, London, especially Wulf Gaetner; University of London Statistics Seminar at Imperial College of Science and Technology, especially Henry Wynn and Geof Hyman; University College Swansea; University of Wales Economics Colloquim at Gregynog; University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, especially Mike Jones-Lee; University of York. Finally, Paramesh Ray provided valuable comments. All errors and omissions are my own.

References

Arrow, K.J. (1963), Social Choice and Individual Values, second edition, New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Arrow, K.J. (1967), Values and Collective decision-making, in Laslett, P. and Runciman, W.G. (eds.), Philosophy Politics and Society, Blackwell, vol. 3.Google Scholar
Blair, D.H., Bordes, G., Kelly, J.S. & Suzumura, K. (1976), Impossibility Theorems without Collective Rationality, Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 13, no. 3.Google Scholar
Blau, J.H. (1971), Arrow’s Theorem with Weak Independence, Economica, 40.Google Scholar
Fishburn, P.C. (1974), On Collective Rationality and a Generalised Impossibility Theorem, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 41, no. 4.Google Scholar
May, K.O. (1952), A Set of Independent, Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision, Econometrica, 20.Google Scholar
Plott, C.R. (1973), Path Independence, Rationality and Social Choice, Econometrica, Vol. 41, no. 6.Google Scholar
Ray, P. (1973), Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives, Econometrica, Vol. 32.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1969), Quasi-Transitivity, Rational Choice and Collective Decisions, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 36.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1970), Collective Choice and Social Welfare, San Fransisco, Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1974), Choice, Orderings and Morality, in Korner, S. (ed.). Practical Reason, Oxford.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1977), Social Choice Theory : A re-examination, Econometrica, Vol. 45, no. 1.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1977a), Rational Fools, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 6, no. 4.Google Scholar
Strasnick, S. (1976), The Problem of Social Choice : Arrow to Rawls, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 5, no. 3.Google Scholar