IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jetheo/v145y2010i2p603-638.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The possibility of judgment aggregation on agendas with subjunctive implications

Author

Listed:
  • Dietrich, Franz

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Dietrich, Franz, 2010. "The possibility of judgment aggregation on agendas with subjunctive implications," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 603-638, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:145:y:2010:i:2:p:603-638
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022-0531(08)00051-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. List, Christian, 2004. "A Model of Path-Dependence in Decisions over Multiple Propositions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(3), pages 495-513, August.
    2. Franz Dietrich, 2007. "A generalised model of judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(4), pages 529-565, June.
    3. Mongin, Philippe, 2008. "Factoring out the impossibility of logical aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 141(1), pages 100-113, July.
    4. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2007. "Strategy-Proof Judgment Aggregation," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 269-300, November.
    5. Martin Hees, 2007. "The limits of epistemic democracy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(4), pages 649-666, June.
    6. List, Christian & Pettit, Philip, 2002. "Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 89-110, April.
    7. Dietrich, F.K. & List, C., 2006. "Judgment aggregation on restricted domains," Research Memorandum 033, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    8. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2007. "Judgment Aggregation By Quota Rules," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(4), pages 391-424, October.
    9. Christian List, 2002. "A Model of Path-Dependence in Decisions over Multiple Propositions," Economics Papers 2002-W15, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    10. Dietrich, Franz, 2006. "Judgment aggregation: (im)possibility theorems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 286-298, 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. Philippe Mongin, 2012. "The doctrinal paradox, the discursive dilemma, and logical aggregation theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 315-355, September.
    2. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/dambferfb7dfprc9m2e02cub3 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. List, Christian & Polak, Ben, 2010. "Introduction to judgment aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 441-466, March.
    4. Crès, Hervé & Gilboa, Itzhak & Vieille, Nicolas, 2024. "Bureaucracy in quest of feasibility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    5. Bozbay, Irem, 2012. "Truth-Seeking Judgment Aggregation over Interconnected Issues," Working Papers 2012:31, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    6. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2010. "Majority voting on restricted domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 512-543, March.
    7. Bozbay, İrem & Dietrich, Franz & Peters, Hans, 2014. "Judgment aggregation in search for the truth," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 571-590.
    8. Dietrich, Franz & Mongin, Philippe, 2010. "The premiss-based approach to judgment aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 562-582, March.
    9. Philippe Mongin & Franz Dietrich, 2011. "An Interpretive Account of Logical Aggregation Theory," Working Papers hal-00579343, HAL.
    10. Franz Dietrich, 2014. "Scoring rules for judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(4), pages 873-911, April.
    11. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Leif Danziger, 2015. "When is voting optimal?," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 3(2), pages 341-356, October.
    12. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/dambferfb7dfprc9m2e02cub3 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Nehring, Klaus & Puppe, Clemens, 2010. "Justifiable group choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 583-602, March.
    14. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/dambferfb7dfprc9m2e02cub3 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/dambferfb7dfprc9m2e02cub3 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2010. "The impossibility of unbiased judgment aggregation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 281-299, March.
    17. Cres, Herve & Gilboa, Itzhak & Vieille, Nicolas, 2012. "Bureaucracy in Quest for Feasibility," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275779, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.

    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. List, Christian & Polak, Ben, 2010. "Introduction to judgment aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 441-466, March.
    2. Philippe Mongin, 2012. "The doctrinal paradox, the discursive dilemma, and logical aggregation theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 315-355, September.
    3. Dietrich, Franz, 2016. "Judgment aggregation and agenda manipulation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 113-136.
    4. List, Christian, 2007. "Group deliberation and the transformation of judgments: an impossibility result," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 19273, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2010. "Majority voting on restricted domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 512-543, March.
    6. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2008. "Judgment aggregation without full rationality," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 15-39, June.
    7. Dietrich, Franz & Mongin, Philippe, 2010. "The premiss-based approach to judgment aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 562-582, March.
    8. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2010. "The impossibility of unbiased judgment aggregation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 281-299, March.
    9. Dietrich, Franz, 2015. "Aggregation theory and the relevance of some issues to others," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 463-493.
    10. Franz Dietrich, 2014. "Scoring rules for judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(4), pages 873-911, April.
    11. Zoi Terzopoulou & Ulle Endriss, 2020. "Neutrality and relative acceptability in judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 25-49, June.
    12. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-01249513 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2007. "Strategy-Proof Judgment Aggregation," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 269-300, November.
    14. Franz Dietrich, 2007. "A generalised model of judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(4), pages 529-565, June.
    15. Mongin, Philippe & Dietrich, Franz, 2011. "An interpretive account of logical aggregation theory," HEC Research Papers Series 941, HEC Paris.
    16. List, Christian, 2010. "The theory of judgment aggregation: an introductory review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 27596, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Klaus Nehring & Clemens Puppe, 2008. "Consistent judgement aggregation: the truth-functional case," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 41-57, June.
    18. Dokow, Elad & Holzman, Ron, 2010. "Aggregation of binary evaluations with abstentions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 544-561, March.
    19. Baumeister, Dorothea & Erdélyi, Gábor & Erdélyi, Olivia J. & Rothe, Jörg, 2015. "Complexity of manipulation and bribery in judgment aggregation for uniform premise-based quota rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 19-30.
    20. Bozbay, Irem, 2012. "Truth-Seeking Judgment Aggregation over Interconnected Issues," Working Papers 2012:31, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    21. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2013. "Propositionwise judgment aggregation: the general case," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 1067-1095, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Judgment aggregation Subjunctive implication Material implication Characterisation of possibility agendas;

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • D79 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Other

    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:jetheo:v:145:y:2010:i:2:p:603-638. 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/inca/622869 .

    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.