The possibility of judgment aggregation on agendas with subjunctive implications

The new field of judgment aggregation aims to find collective judgments on logically interconnected propositions. Recent impossibility results establish limitations on the possibility to vote independently on the propositions. I show that, fortunately, the impossibility results do not apply to a wide class of realistic agendas once propositions like “if a then b” are adequately modelled, namely as subjunctive implications rather than material implications. For these agendas, consistent and complete collective judgments can be reached through appropriate quota rules (which decide propositions using acceptance thresholds). I characterise the class of these quota rules. I also prove an abstract result that characterises consistent aggregation for arbitrary agendas in a general logic.     

Factoring out the impossibility of logical aggregation

According to a theorem recently proved in the theory of logical aggregation, any nonconstant social judgment function that satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) is dictatorial. We show that the strong and not very plausible IIA condition can be replaced with a minimal independence assumption plus a Pareto-like condition. This new version of the impossibility theorem likens it to Arrow's and arguably enhances its paradoxical value.     

The premiss-based approach to judgment aggregation

In the framework of judgment aggregation, we assume that some formulas of the agenda are singled out as premisses, and that both Independence (formula-wise aggregation) and Unanimity Preservation hold for them. Whether premiss-based aggregation thus defined is compatible with conclusion-based aggregation, as defined by Unanimity Preservation on the non-premisses, depends on how the premisses are logically connected, both among themselves and with other formulas. We state necessary and sufficient conditions under which the combination of both approaches leads to dictatorship (resp. oligarchy), either just on the premisses or on the whole agenda. Our analysis is inspired by the doctrinal paradox of legal theory and is arguably relevant to this field as well as political science and political economy. When the set of premisses coincides with the whole agenda, a limiting case of our assumptions, we obtain several existing results in judgment aggregation theory.     

Weak Independence and Social Semi‐Orders

This paper provides variants of Arrow's impossibility theorem, which states that there exists no non‐dictatorial aggregation rule satisfying weak Pareto, independence of irrelevant alternatives and collective rationality. In this paper, independence of irrelevant alternatives and collective rationality are simultaneously relaxed. Weak independence is imposed instead of independence of irrelevant alternatives. Social preferences are assumed to satisfy the semi‐order properties of semi‐transitivity and the interval‐order property. We prove that there exists a vetoer when the number of alternatives is greater than or equal to six.     

Introduction to judgment aggregation

This introduces the symposium on judgment aggregation. The theory of judgment aggregation asks how several individuals' judgments on some logically connected propositions can be aggregated into consistent collective judgments. The aim of this introduction is to show how ideas from the familiar theory of preference aggregation can be extended to this more general case. We first translate a proof of Arrow's impossibility theorem into the new setting, so as to motivate some of the central concepts and conditions leading to analogous impossibilities, as discussed in the symposium. We then consider each of four possible escape-routes explored in the symposium.     

Aggregation of binary evaluations

We study a general aggregation problem in which a society has to determine its position (yes/no) on each of several issues, based on the positions of the members of the society on those issues. There is a prescribed set of feasible evaluations, i.e., permissible combinations of positions on the issues. This framework for the theory of aggregation was introduced by Wilson and further developed by Rubinstein and Fishburn. Among other things, it admits the modeling of preference aggregation (where the issues are pairwise comparisons and feasibility reflects rationality), and of judgment aggregation (where the issues are propositions and feasibility reflects logical consistency). We characterize those sets of feasible evaluations for which the natural analogue of Arrow's impossibility theorem holds true in this framework.     

Justifiable group choice

We study the judgment aggregation problem from the perspective of justifying a particular collective decision by a corresponding aggregation on the criteria. In particular, we characterize the logical relations between the decision and the criteria that enable justification of a majority decision through a proposition-wise aggregation rule with no veto power on the criteria. While the well-studied “doctrinal paradox” provides a negative example in which no such justification exists, we show that genuine possibility results emerge if there is a gap between the necessary and the sufficient conditions for the decision. This happens, for instance, if there is only a partial consensus about the appropriate criteria for the decision, if only a subset of these criteria can be elicited, or if the judgment on criteria is based on probabilistic acceptance thresholds.     

Aggregation of binary evaluations with abstentions

A general model of aggregation of binary evaluations over interrelated issues, introduced by Wilson and further studied by Rubinstein and Fishburn and by the authors, is extended here to allow for abstentions on some of the issues. It is shown that the same structural conditions on the set of feasible evaluations that lead to dictatorship in the model without abstentions, lead to oligarchy in the presence of abstentions. Arrow's impossibility theorem for social welfare functions, Gibbard's oligarchy theorem for quasi-transitive social decision functions, as well as some apparently new theorems on preference aggregation, are obtained as corollaries.     

Majority voting on restricted domains

In judgment aggregation, unlike preference aggregation, not much is known about domain restrictions that guarantee consistent majority outcomes. We introduce several conditions on individual judgments sufficient for consistent majority judgments. Some are based on global orders of propositions or individuals, others on local orders, still others not on orders at all. Some generalize classic social-choice-theoretic domain conditions, others have no counterpart. Our most general condition generalizes Sen's triplewise value-restriction, itself the most general classic condition. We also prove a new characterization theorem: for a large class of domains, if there exists any aggregation function satisfying some democratic conditions, then majority voting is the unique such function. Taken together, our results support the robustness of majority rule.     

Lexicographic compositions of multiple criteria for decision making

This paper considers two distinct procedures to lexicographically compose multiple criteria for social or individual decision making. The first procedure composes M binary relations into one, and then selects its maximal elements. The second procedure first selects the set of maximal elements of the first binary relation, and then within that set, chooses the maximal elements of the second binary relation, and iterates the procedure until the Mth binary relation. We show several distinct sets of conditions for the choice functions representing these two procedures to satisfy non-emptiness and choice-consistency conditions such as contraction consistency and path independence. We also examine the relationships between the outcomes of the two procedures. Finally we investigate under what conditions the outcomes of each procedure are independent of the order of lexicographic application of the criteria.     

Persistence of initial debt in the long-term employment dynamics of new firms

Abstract.  This paper investigates whether a firm's future growth is independent of its initial debt structure. The non-parametric test consists of determining whether the conditional size distribution for firms surviving through early years of life depends upon debt-to-asset ratio at birth. Initially, I test for initial size dependence in the growth process by applying Pakes and Ericson (1998) procedure. I then test the hypothesis that initial debt-to-asset ratios are irrelevant to growth of ten-year old manufacturing firms. I reject the null of independence, and find evidence of a non-monotonic relationship between age ten conditional size and the initial debt-to-asset ratio.     

Independence of irrelevant alternatives and consistency of choice

Summary. We show that Arrow's condition of independence of irrelevant alternatives is logically related to conditions of consistency of choice (in particular, to Arrow's choice axiom). The relation, however, is indirect. The link is provided by an independence condition due to Hansson (Synthese, 1969) which applies to fixed agenda social choice rules.     

Reconstructing dynamics from intertemporal economic data

Summary This paper is concerned with the relationship between a continuous dynamical system and the trajectory generated by such a system. The main result provides necessary and sufficient conditions for an infinite data stream to be rationalized as the output of a continuous law of motion. The paper develops concepts of informativeness of a given set of intertemporal data and shows that informativeness is maximal when the data is chaotic. It also demonstrates that with probability one the sample paths from a non-trivial independent and identically distributed stochastic process cannot be rationalized as the output of a continuous deterministic system. Two impossibility results are discussed which show that even with an infinite amount of data the hypothesis that the data has been generated by a non-monotonic function cannot be ruled out. An application concerning the recovery of the excess demand function from a sequence of price observations from the tatonnement process is also given.I would like to thank Professors Bent Christensen and Mukul Majumdar for valuable discussions and an anonymous referee for helpful comments. Financial support from SSHRC and Quebec's Fonds FCAR is gratefully acknowledged.     

Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions

Consider a committee which must select one alternative from a set of three or more alternatives. Committee members each cast a ballot which the voting procedure counts. The voting procedure is strategy-proof if it always induces every committee member to cast a ballot revealing his preference. I prove three theorems. First, every strategy-proof voting procedure is dictatorial. Second, this paper's strategy-proofness condition for voting procedures corresponds to Arrow's rationality, independence of irrelevant alternatives, non-negative response, and citizens' sovereignty conditions for social welfare functions. Third, Arrow's general possibility theorem is proven in a new manner.     

Relaxing Pareto optimality in economic environments

Summary.  The individual preference domain is the family of profiles of economic preferences on the set of allocations of public or private goods, or both. The agenda domain assumption allows for a finite lower bound on the size of a feasible set. If a social choice correspondence satisfies nonimposition, Arrow’s choice axiom, and independence of infeasible alternatives then it is directly or inversely dictatorial, or null. Received: October 10, 1995; revised version: June 20, 1996     

A unifying impossibility theorem

This paper identifies and illuminates a common impossibility principle underlying a number of impossibility theorems in social choice. We consider social choice correspondences assigning a choice set to each non-empty subset of social alternatives. Three simple axioms are imposed as follows: unanimity, independence of preferences over infeasible alternatives, and choice consistency with respect to choices out of all possible alternatives. With more than three social alternatives and the universal preference domain, any social choice correspondence that satisfies our axioms is serially dictatorial. A number of known impossibility theorems—including Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, the Muller–Satterthwaite Theorem, and the impossibility theorem under strategic candidacy—follow as corollaries.     

The Possibility of Issue-Specific Decisions on Multiple Social Choice Issues

This paper considers an aggregation rule when each alternative consists of elements of multiple issues. I assume that each issue-specific aggregation rule can be applied to each issue and explore whether various different issue-specific aggregation rules are compatible. When the set of alternatives has some structure (which we call a set connected by loops), there exists a powerful individual whose preference always coincides with the social ordering in every issue. As a corollary, Arrow's General Possibility Theorem is obtained.     

On the Problem of Constructing Rational Preferences

In standard models it is typically taken for granted that preferences are given and defined over the alternatives alone, and the possibility of making a rational choice is a matter of assumption. I generalise this aspect of the economic model so that preferences over alternatives are constructed from given preferences defined over various characteristics of the alternatives under consideration. I characterise the decision problem before investigating what conditions a procedure for aggregating preferences over attributes into preferences over alternatives must satisfy in order for the latter to be rational. I then consider what the implications of these conditions for the procedural rationality of the aggregation process.     

On the frontier between possibility and impossibility theorems in social choice

This paper attemts to make precise the frontier between possibility and impossibility theorems in social choice. It is shown that some criterion of rejection of some alternative is the critical factor. In the absence of such a condition, it is possible to construct a fairly wide class of “democratic” decision rules which satisfies a class of consistency conditions. Any one of these, together with the criterion of rejection, generates a power structure similar to the ones discovered by Arrow, Gibbard, and others when the decision rule is required to satisfy the weak Pareto principle and the independence condition.     

Information structures with unawareness

I construct a state space model with unawareness following [R.J. Aumann, Agreeing to disagree, Ann. Stat. 76 (1976) 1236-1239]. Dekel et al. [E. Dekel, B.L. Lipman, A. Rustichini, Standard state-space models preclude unawareness, Econometrica 66 (1998) 159-173] show that standard state space models are incapable of representing unawareness. The model circumvents the impossibility result by endowing the agent with a subjective state space that differs from the full state space when he has the unawareness problem. Information is modeled as a pair, consisting of both factual information and awareness information. The model preserves the central properties of the standard information partition model.