IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v62y1999i2p201-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An oligarchy theorem in fixed agenda without Pareto conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Peris, Josep E.
  • Sanchez, M. Carmen

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Peris, Josep E. & Sanchez, M. Carmen, 1999. "An oligarchy theorem in fixed agenda without Pareto conditions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 201-206, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:62:y:1999:i:2:p:201-206
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165-1765(98)00221-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Carmen SÂnchez & Josep E. Peris, 1999. "Veto in fixed agenda social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(1), pages 81-97.
    2. Denicolo Vincenzo, 1993. "Fixed Agenda Social Choice Theory: Correspondence and Impossibility Theorems for Social Choice Correspondences and Social Decision Functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 324-332, April.
    3. Wilson, Robert, 1972. "Social choice theory without the Pareto Principle," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 478-486, December.
    4. Jerry S. Kelly & Donald E. Campbell, 1998. "Quasitransitive social preference: why some very large coalitions have very little power," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 12(1), pages 147-162.
    5. Fountain, John & Suzumura, Kotaro, 1982. "Collective Choice Rules without the Pareto Principle," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 23(2), pages 299-308, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Susumu Cato & Yohei Sekiguchi, 2012. "A generalization of Campbell and Kelly’s trade-off theorem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(2), pages 237-246, February.
    2. Susumu Cato, 2012. "Social choice without the Pareto principle: a comprehensive analysis," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(4), pages 869-889, October.
    3. Susumu Cato, 2016. "Weak independence and the Pareto principle," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 295-314, August.
    4. Susumu Cato, 2010. "Brief proofs of Arrovian impossibility theorems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(2), pages 267-284, July.
    5. Wesley H. Holliday & Mikayla Kelley, 2020. "A note on Murakami’s theorems and incomplete social choice without the Pareto principle," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(2), pages 243-253, August.
    6. Donald Campbell & Jerry Kelly, 2014. "Universally beneficial manipulation: a characterization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(2), pages 329-355, August.
    7. Marc Fleurbaey, 2000. "Choix social : une difficulté et de multiples possibilités," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 51(5), pages 1215-1232.
    8. Juan Candeal, 2013. "Invariance axioms for preferences: applications to social choice theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(3), pages 453-471, September.
    9. Crès, Hervé & Gilboa, Itzhak & Vieille, Nicolas, 2024. "Bureaucracy in quest of feasibility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    10. Lauwers, Luc, 2000. "Topological social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-39, July.
    11. Elchanan Mossel & Omer Tamuz, 2012. "Complete characterization of functions satisfying the conditions of Arrow’s theorem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(1), pages 127-140, June.
    12. Miller, Michael K., 2009. "Social choice theory without Pareto: The pivotal voter approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 251-255, September.
    13. Jérémy Picot, 2012. "Random aggregation without the Pareto principle," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 16(1), pages 1-13, March.
    14. Yasuhito Tanaka, 2005. "A topological approach to the Arrow impossibility theorem when individual preferences are weak orders (forcoming in ``Applied Mathematics and Compuation''(Elsevier))," Public Economics 0506013, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 17 Jun 2005.
    15. Lars Ehlers & John A. Weymark, 2003. "Candidate stability and nonbinary social choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 22(2), pages 233-243, September.
    16. Jeffrey Richelson, 1984. "Social choice and the status quo," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 225-234, January.
    17. Kruger, Justin & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2021. "The relationship between Arrow’s and Wilson’s theorems on restricted domains," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 95-97.
    18. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2010. "The impossibility of unbiased judgment aggregation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 281-299, March.
    19. Mongin, Philippe & Dietrich, Franz, 2011. "An interpretive account of logical aggregation theory," HEC Research Papers Series 941, HEC Paris.
    20. Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2015. "Impossibility theorems are modified and unified," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 849-866, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:62:y:1999:i:2:p:201-206. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.