IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v85y1995i3p473-487.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Three practical criteria of comparison among ordinal preference aggregating rules

Author

Listed:
  • Perez, J.
  • Barba-Romero, S.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Perez, J. & Barba-Romero, S., 1995. "Three practical criteria of comparison among ordinal preference aggregating rules," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 473-487, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:85:y:1995:i:3:p:473-487
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0377-2217(94)00012-2
    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. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1978. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(16), pages 1721-1732, December.
    2. Kelly, Jerry S., 1978. "Arrow Impossibility Theorems," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 1, number 9780124033504 edited by Shell, Karl.
    3. Young, H. P., 1974. "An axiomatization of Borda's rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 43-52, September.
    4. Peter C. Fishburn, 1974. "Subset Choice Conditions and the Computation of Social Choice Sets," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 88(2), pages 320-329.
    5. Kenneth J. Arrow & Herve Raynaud, 1986. "Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision-Making," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511754, April.
    6. Sen, Amartya K, 1977. "Social Choice Theory: A Re-examination," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(1), pages 53-89, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marchant, Thierry, 2003. "Towards a theory of MCDM: stepping away from social choice theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 343-363, July.

    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. Zachary F. Lansdowne, 1996. "Ordinal ranking methods for multicriterion decision making," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(5), pages 613-627, August.
    2. Brandl, Florian & Peters, Dominik, 2022. "Approval voting under dichotomous preferences: A catalogue of characterizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    3. Marcel Richter & Kam-Chau Wong, 2008. "Preference densities and social choices," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 36(2), pages 225-238, August.
    4. Lamboray, Claude, 2007. "A comparison between the prudent order and the ranking obtained with Borda's, Copeland's, Slater's and Kemeny's rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-16, July.
    5. Nicolas Houy, 2010. "A characterization of prudent choices," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(2), pages 181-192, February.
    6. Claude Lamboray, 2010. "A Progressive Search for a Group Ranking with Robust Conclusions on Prudent Orders," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 39-56, January.
    7. Susumu Cato, 2014. "Menu Dependence and Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 561-577, May.
    8. Yoko Kawada, 2018. "Cosine similarity and the Borda rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 1-11, June.
    9. Brandt, Felix & Harrenstein, Paul, 2011. "Set-rationalizable choice and self-stability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(4), pages 1721-1731, July.
    10. Mina Baliamoune-Lutz, 2004. "On the Measurement of Human Well-being: Fuzzy Set Theory and Sen's Capability Approach," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2004-16, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    11. Irina Georgescu, 2007. "Arrow’s Axiom and Full Rationality for Fuzzy Choice Functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(2), pages 303-319, February.
    12. Le Breton, Michel & Truchon, Michel, 1997. "A Borda measure for social choice functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 249-272, October.
    13. Burak Can & Peter Csoka & Emre Ergin, 2017. "How to choose a non-manipulable delegation?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1713, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    14. Núñez, Matías & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Revisiting the connection between the no-show paradox and monotonicity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 9-17.
    15. Battal Doğan & Semih Koray, 2015. "Maskin-monotonic scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(2), pages 423-432, February.
    16. Jabeur, Khaled & Martel, Jean-Marc, 2007. "A collective choice method based on individual preferences relational systems (p.r.s.)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1549-1565, March.
    17. Truchon, Michel, 1998. "Figure Skating and the Theory of Social Choice," Cahiers de recherche 9814, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    18. Sebastian Bervoets & Vincent Merlin, 2012. "Gerrymander-proof representative democracies," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(3), pages 473-488, August.
    19. Gerasimou, Georgios, 2010. "Rational indecisive choice," MPRA Paper 25481, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. William Gehrlein, 2002. "Condorcet's paradox and the likelihood of its occurrence: different perspectives on balanced preferences ," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 171-199, March.

    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:ejores:v:85:y:1995:i:3:p:473-487. 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/eor .

    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.