Preference revelation with a limited number of indifference classes

Suppose that g is a strategy-proof social choice rule on the domain of all profiles of complete and transitive binary relations that have exactly m indifference classes. If and the range of g has three or more members, then g is dictatorial. If m = 2, then for any set X of feasible alternatives, there exist non-dictatorial and strategy-proof rules that are sensitive to the preferences of every individual and which have X as range.     

Characterization of the private alternatives domains admitting arrow social welfare functions

An n-person social choice problem is considered in which the alternatives are n dimensional vectors with the ith component of such a vector being the part of the alternative effecting individual i alone. Assuming that individuals are selfish (i is indifferent between any two alternatives that have the same ith component) we characterize all the families of permissible individual preferences that admit nondictatorial Arrow-type social welfare functions. We also show that the existence of such a function for a given family of preferences is independent of n provided that is greater than one.     

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 Measure Of The Trade‐Off Between Responsiveness and Nondictatorship for Arrovian Social Welfare Functions

If individuals are never indifferent between distinct alternatives then for any transitive‐valued social welfare function satisfying IIA, and any fraction t, either the set of pairs of alternatives that are socially ordered without consulting more than one individual's preferences comprises at least the fraction t of all pairs, or else the fraction of pairs that have their social ordering determined independently of everyone's s preferences exceeds, or is very close to, 1 ?t. The Pareto criterion is not imposed. (There is also a version of this result for the domain of preferences that admit indifference.)     

Quasitransitive social preference: why some very large coalitions have very little power

Summary. If only the strict part of social preference is required to be transitive then Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives implies that there is a coalition containing all but one individual that cannot force x to be socially ranked above y for at least half of the pairs of alternatives (x,y). Received: August 29, 1996; revised version: March 24, 1997     

A characterization of consistent collective choice rules

We characterize a class of collective choice rules such that collective preference relations are consistent. Consistency is a weakening of transitivity and a strengthening of acyclicity requiring that there be no cycles with at least one strict preference, which excludes the possibility of a “money pump.” The properties of collective choice rules used in our characterization are unrestricted domain, strong Pareto, anonymity and neutrality. If there are at most as many individuals as there are alternatives, the axioms provide an alternative characterization of the Pareto rule. If there are more individuals than alternatives, however, further rules become available.     

Euclidean individual preference and continuous social preference

Assume a finite society, a standard space of allocations of public goods, and an open and connected domain of profiles of Euclidean individual preferences. (There is an additional technical restriction on the domain.) If a social welfare function f satisfies Arrow's independence axiom and generates social preferences that are continuous and transitive, then f is constant or dictatorial or inversely dictatorial.     

Public decisions: Solidarity and the status quo

A public decision model specifies a set of alternatives, a variable population, and a common set of admissible preferences. We study the implications of the principle of solidarity, for social choice functions in all such models. The principle says that when the environment changes, all agents not responsible for the change should either all weakly win, or all weakly lose. Under weak additional requirements, but regardless the domain of preferences, each of two formulations of this principle, population-monotonicity and replacement-domination, imply coalition-strategy-proofness; that the choice only depends on the set of preferences that are present in the society, but not on the number, nor on the labels of agents having particular preferences; and that there exists an alternative always weakly Pareto-dominated by the alternative selected by the rule. Replacement-domination is generally at least as strong as population-monotonicity.     

Arrovian aggregation in economic environments: how much should we know about indifference surfaces?

Arrow's celebrated theorem of social choice shows that the aggregation of individual preferences into a social ordering cannot make the ranking of any pair of alternatives depend only on individual preferences over that pair, unless the fundamental weak Pareto and non-dictatorship principles are violated. In the standard model of division of commodities, we investigate how much information about indifference surfaces is needed to construct social ordering functions satisfying the weak Pareto principle and anonymity. We show that local information such as marginal rates of substitution or the shapes “within the Edgeworth box” is not enough, and knowledge of substantially non-local information is necessary.     

Another Graphical Proof of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem

Arrow's (1951) Impossibility Theorem is the idea that, given several well-known assumptions, the social orderings of particular alternatives that are meant to reflect individuals' preferences must match the preferences of an arbitrary individual (the dictator). A social-choice rule other than dictatorship is impossible. Following from Fountain (2000), the author presents another graphical proof of the theorem that is intended to be more accessible to students and teachers of economics. The principal strength of this approach is that the patterns of agreements and conflicts over all possible combinations of two individuals' rankings of alternatives are transparent; appreciating these patterns is the key to intuitively understanding Arrow's theorem. A self-test for readers (or a classroom exercise for students) is included.     

Group decision-making in the shadow of disagreement

A model of group decision-making is studied, in which one of two alternatives must be chosen. While agents differ in their preferences over alternatives, everybody prefers agreement to disagreement. Our model is distinguished by three features: private information regarding valuations, differing intensities in preferences, and the option to declare neutrality to avoid disagreement. There is always an equilibrium in which the majority is more aggressive in pushing its alternative, thus enforcing their will via both numbers and voice. However, under general conditions an aggressive minority equilibrium inevitably makes an appearance, provided that the group is large enough. Such equilibria invariably display a “tyranny of the minority”: the increased aggression of the minority always outweighs their smaller number, leading to the minority outcome being implemented with larger probability than the majority alternative. We fully characterize the asymptotic behavior of this model as group size becomes large, and show that all equilibria must converge to one of three possible limit outcomes.     

Majority cycles in a multi-dimensional setting

Summary. We consider a set of alternatives (electoral platforms, bills, etc. ...) defined as a Cartesian product of k finite discrete sets. We assume that the preferences of the individuals (voters) are marginally single-peaked and separable. The main result of this paper states that the pairwise majority relation satisfies these two properties but that it might exhibit several cycles. This result is important when related to classical problems of multi-dimensional decisions such as logrolling and vote trading. We relate our result with a continuous version of it (McKelvey, 1976). Received: March 21, 2000; revised version: April 12, 2001     

Strategy-proof allocation mechanisms for pure public goods economies when preferences are monotonic

Summary. A fundamental problem in public finance is that of allocating a␣given budget to financing the provision of public goods (education, transportation, police, etc.). In this paper it is established that when␣admissible preferences are those representable by continuous and increasing utility functions, then strategy-proof allocation mechanisms whose (undominated) range contains three or more outcomes are dictatorial on the set of profiles of strictly increasing utility functions, a dense subset of the domain in the topologies commonly used in this context. If admissible utility functions are further restricted to be strictly increasing, or if mechanisms are required to be non-wasteful, then strategy-profness leads to (full) dictatorship. Received: August 14, 1995; revised version: September 25, 1997     

A MARKET WITH A SOCIAL CONSUMPTION EXTERNALITY*

We model a spatial market in which the utility of each consumer is affected by the consumers who buy precisely the same product. The marginal contribution of consumers x's purchase on consumer y depends on |x–y|, which declines as |x–y| increases. Such modelling of preferences fits goods that signal a consumer's place in society—clothing styles, automobiles and jewellry are examples. For 2n + 1 firms we find the unique symmetric equilibrium and derive comparative statics on the optimal number of firms, the largest number of firms the market can support, and the behaviour of profits per firm as n increases.     

A Model of Procedural Decision Making in the Presence of Risk*

We introduce a procedural model of risky choice in which an individual is endowed with a core preference relation that may be highly incomplete. She can, however, derive further rankings of alternatives from her core preferences by means of a procedure based on the independence axiom. We find that the preferences that are generated from an initial set of rankings according to this procedure can be represented by means of a set of von Neumann–Morgenstern utility functions, thereby allowing for incompleteness of preference relations. The proposed theory also yields new characterizations of the stochastic dominance orderings.     

Essential aggregation procedures on restricted domains of preferences

The restricted domains of individuals' preferences that permit the construction of Arrow social welfare functions and nonmanipulable voting procedures in which each of n voters has some power are characterized. In this context a domain is the Cartesian product of n sets of strict preference orderings. Variants of this result are obtained under the additional requirement of neutrality and in the case when alternatives are vectors whose ith components affect only the ith voter. Kalai and Muller's analogous result (J. Econ. Theory16 (1977), 457–469) concerning nondictatorial procedures is discussed and proved as a corollary to the main theorem.     

Lebesgue measure and social choice trade-offs

Summary An Arrovian social choice rule is a social welfare function satisfying independence of irrelevant alternatives and transitivity of social preference. Assume a measurable outcome spaceX with its (Lebesgue) measure normalized to unity. For any Arrovian rule and any fractiont, either some individual dictates over a subset ofX of measuret or more, or at least a fraction 1–t of the pairs of distinct alternatives have their social ordering fixed independently of individual preferences. Also, for any positive integer (less than the total number of individuals), there is some subsetH of society consisting of all but persons such that the fraction of outcome pairs (x, y) that are social ranked without consulting the preferences of anyone inH, whenever no individual is indifferent betweenx andy, is at least 1–1/4.We are grateful to Roy Mathias and Daniel Waterman for help with some technical matters, and to chairman Jim Follain and the Syracuse University Economics Department for financing the exchange that launched this project. Campbell's research was funded by National Science Foundation grants, SES 9007953 and SES 9209039.     

STRATEGIC CANDIDACY AND SINGLE‐PEAKEDNESS*

In elections, the voting outcomes are affected by strategic entries of candidates. We study a class of voting rules immune to strategic candidacy. Dutta et al. (2001 ) show that such rules satisfying unanimity are dictatorial if all orderings of candidates are admissible for voters’ preferences. When voters’ preferences are single‐peaked over a political spectrum, there exist non‐dictatorial rules immune to strategic candidacy. An example is the rule selecting the m‐th peak from the left among the peaks of voters’ preferences, where m is any natural number no more than the number of voters. We show that immunity from strategic candidacy with basic axioms fully characterizes the family of the m‐th leftmost peak rules.     

The informational effects of competition and collusion in legislative politics

We use a mechanism design approach to study the organization of interest groups in an informational model of lobbying. Interest groups influence the legislature only by communicating private information on their preferences and not by means of monetary transfers. Interest groups have private information on their ideal points in a one-dimensional policy space and may either compete or adopt more collusive behaviors. Optimal policies result from a trade-off between imposing rules which are non-responsive to the groups' preferences and flexibility that pleases groups better. Within a strong coalition, interest groups credibly share information which facilitates communication of their joint interests, helps screening by the legislature and induces flexible policies responsive to the groups' joint interests (an informativeness effect). Competing interest groups better transmit information on their individual preferences (a screening effect). The socially and privately optimal organization of lobbying favors competition between groups only when their preferences are not too congruent with those of the legislature. With more congruence, a strong coalition is preferred. Finally, within a weak coalition, interest groups must design incentive compatible collusive mechanisms to share information. Such weak coalitions are always inefficient.     

Speed and quality of collective decision making: Imperfect information processing

This paper studies efficient programmed hierarchies as introduced by Radner [The organization of decentralized information processing, Econometrica 61(5) (1993) 1109-1146] in which agents cannot process information perfectly. A group of P identical managers has to make a choice between n alternatives. In order to learn which is the best option, the alternatives have to be compared. The evaluation of an alternative takes time and managers are only able to identify the better one of two alternatives with a positive probability. The skip-level reporting tree proposed by Radner is found to be efficient in terms of the dimensions decision cost, decision delay, and decision quality.