IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v39y2011i2p179-185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The design of socially optimal decisions in a consensus scenario

Author

Listed:
  • González-Pachón, Jacinto
  • Romero, Carlos

Abstract

Several situations of conflict between basic social principles can crop up during a consensus searching process. The majority principle and respect for minority groups is a possible example of a conflictive situation between two social principles. In this paper, we outline a specific consensus searching scenario, where individual preferences are expressed by "pairwise" comparison matrices. The set of compromise consensuses between the majority and minority principles is determined using a procedure based upon an adaptation of Yu's p-metric distances. Finally, we use three different theoretical approaches - utility theory, p-metric distance functions and bargaining theory - to obtain the social optimum from the set of compromise consensuses. The links and differences among the three approaches are analysed. Finally, the working of the proposed theoretical framework is illustrated with the help of a forestry case study.

Suggested Citation

  • González-Pachón, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2011. "The design of socially optimal decisions in a consensus scenario," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 179-185, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:39:y:2011:i:2:p:179-185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(10)00072-1
    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. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    2. J González-Pachón & C Romero, 2006. "An analytical framework for aggregating multiattribute utility functions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1241-1247, October.
    3. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    4. Noel Bryson, 1997. "Supporting consensus formation in Group Support Systems using the Qualitative Discriminant Process," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 71(0), pages 75-91, January.
    5. P. L. Yu, 1973. "A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(8), pages 936-946, April.
    6. Nakayama, Hirotaka, 1992. "Trade-off analysis using parametric optimization techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 87-98, July.
    7. Ralph L. Keeney, 1976. "A Group Preference Axiomatization with Cardinal Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 140-145, October.
    8. Romero, Carlos, 2004. "A general structure of achievement function for a goal programming model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(3), pages 675-686, March.
    9. Ramanathan, Ramakrishnan & Ramanathan, Usha, 2010. "A qualitative perspective to deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 228-232, June.
    10. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2008. "A method for obtaining transitive approximations of a binary relation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 197-208, October.
    11. Cook, Wade D., 2006. "Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 369-385, July.
    12. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    13. Gonzalez-Pachon, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2004. "A method for dealing with inconsistencies in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 351-361, October.
    14. Linares, Pedro & Romero, Carlos, 2002. "Aggregation of preferences in an environmental economics context: a goal-programming approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 89-95, April.
    15. Avkiran, Necmi K. & Morita, Hiroshi, 2010. "Benchmarking firm performance from a multiple-stakeholder perspective with an application to Chinese banking," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 501-508, December.
    16. Marchamalo, M. & Romero, C., 2007. "Participatory decision-making in land use planning: An application in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 740-748, September.
    17. Ralph L. Keeney & Craig W. Kirkwood, 1975. "Group Decision Making Using Cardinal Social Welfare Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 430-437, December.
    18. Romero, Carlos, 2001. "Extended lexicographic goal programming: a unifying approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 63-71, February.
    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. Francisco Salas-Molina & Filippo Bistaffa & Juan A. Rodriguez-Aguilar, 2024. "A General Approach for Computing a Consensus in Group Decision Making That Integrates Multiple Ethical Principles," Papers 2401.07818, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    2. Brandt, Patric & Kvakić, Marko & Butterbach-Bahl, Klaus & Rufino, Mariana C., 2017. "How to target climate-smart agriculture? Concept and application of the consensus-driven decision support framework “targetCSA”," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 234-245.
    3. Gong, Zaiwu & Xu, Xiaoxia & Zhang, Huanhuan & Aytun Ozturk, U. & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique & Xu, Chao, 2015. "The consensus models with interval preference opinions and their economic interpretation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 81-90.
    4. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    5. Chun-xiang Guo & Ying Peng, 2015. "Lattice Order Group Decision Making with Interval Probability Based on Prospect Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 753-775, September.
    6. González-Pachón, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2016. "Bentham, Marx and Rawls ethical principles: In search for a compromise," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 47-51.
    7. Salas-Molina, Francisco & Bistaffa, Filippo & Rodríguez-Aguilar, Juan A., 2023. "A general approach for computing a consensus in group decision making that integrates multiple ethical principles," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    8. Juan Ribes & Jacinto González-Pachón, 2021. "Risk Attitude in Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Compromise Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-14, June.
    9. Önkal, Dilek & Zeynep Sayım, K. & Lawrence, Michael, 2012. "Wisdom of group forecasts: Does role-playing play a role?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 693-702.
    10. Cascón, J.M. & González-Arteaga, T. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2019. "Reaching social consensus family budgets: The Spanish case," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 28-41.
    11. Benítez-Fernández, Amalia & Ruiz, Francisco, 2020. "A Meta-Goal Programming approach to cardinal preferences aggregation in multicriteria problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    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. J González-Pachón & C Romero, 2006. "An analytical framework for aggregating multiattribute utility functions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1241-1247, October.
    2. Benítez-Fernández, Amalia & Ruiz, Francisco, 2020. "A Meta-Goal Programming approach to cardinal preferences aggregation in multicriteria problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Gebrezgabher, Solomie A. & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2014. "A multiple criteria decision making approach to manure management systems in the Netherlands," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 643-653.
    4. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    5. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    6. Kapeller, Jakob & Steinerberger, Stefan, 2017. "Stability, fairness and random walks in the bargaining problem," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 488(C), pages 60-71.
    7. María Romero & María Luisa Cuadrado & Luis Romero & Carlos Romero, 2020. "Optimum acceptability of telecommunications networks: a multi-criteria approach," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 1899-1911, September.
    8. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    9. M. Voorneveld & A. Nouweland & R. McLean, 2011. "Axiomatizations of the Euclidean compromise solution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(3), pages 427-448, August.
    10. González-Pachón, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2016. "Bentham, Marx and Rawls ethical principles: In search for a compromise," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 47-51.
    11. Eric van Damme, 1984. "The Nash Bargaining Solution is Optimal," Discussion Papers 597, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    12. Younghwan In, 2008. "On the relevance of alternatives in bargaining: generalized average pay-off solutions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 37(2), pages 251-264, June.
    13. Ok, Efe A., 1998. "Inequality averse collective choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 301-321, October.
    14. de Andrés, Rocío & García-Lapresta, José Luis & González-Pachón, Jacinto, 2010. "Performance appraisal based on distance function methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1599-1607, December.
    15. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2018. "Anchoring on Utopia: a generalization of the Kalai–Smorodinsky solution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 6(2), pages 141-155, October.
    16. Anocha Aribarg & Neeraj Arora & Moon Young Kang, 2010. "Predicting Joint Choice Using Individual Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 139-157, 01-02.
    17. Jinbaek Kim, 2008. "A model and case for supporting participatory public decision making in e-democracy," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 179-193, May.
    18. Francisco Guijarro & Juan A. Poyatos, 2018. "Designing a Sustainable Development Goal Index through a Goal Programming Model: The Case of EU-28 Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Xu, Yongsheng & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2006. "Alternative characterizations of three bargaining solutions for nonconvex problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 86-92, October.
    20. Barry Nalebuff, 2021. "A Perspective-Invariant Approach to Nash Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 577-593, January.

    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:jomega:v:39:y:2011:i:2:p:179-185. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.