IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v72y2014icp14-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Metric rationalization of social welfare functions

Author

Listed:
  • Andjiga, Nicolas G.
  • Mekuko, Aurelien Y.
  • Moyouwou, Issofa

Abstract

Metric rationalization of social decision rules has been intensively investigated when the social outcome is a nonempty subset of alternatives. The present paper proposes a similar framework for social welfare functions (SWFs)—that is when each social outcome is a ranking of alternatives. A metric rationalizable SWF reports as an approximation of the unanimity consensus the relative ranking of any pair of alternatives as in the closest profile where individuals all agree on those alternatives, the closeness being measured with respect to a metric on profiles. Two notions of unanimity are in consideration: top unanimity on an alternative holds when individuals all agree that it is top ranked while pairwise unanimity on a pair occurs when individuals all prefer an alternative to another. Without strong requirements on metrics, characterizations provided in both cases show that metric rationalizations of SWFs are essentially equivalent to the Pareto principle for SWFs. Furthermore, two interesting classes of metric rationalizable SWFs–multi-valued scoring SWFs and pairwise scoring SWFs–are each uniquely identified by means of some appropriate and appealing properties on metrics among which decomposability, neutrality and monotonicity are known.

Suggested Citation

  • Andjiga, Nicolas G. & Mekuko, Aurelien Y. & Moyouwou, Issofa, 2014. "Metric rationalization of social welfare functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 14-23.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:72:y:2014:i:c:p:14-23
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2014.10.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165489614000730
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2014.10.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Marcus Pivato, 2013. "Voting rules as statistical estimators," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 581-630, February.
    2. Tommi Meskanen & Hannu Nurmi, 2008. "Closeness Counts in Social Choice," Springer Books, in: Matthew Braham & Frank Steffen (ed.), Power, Freedom, and Voting, chapter 15, pages 289-306, Springer.
    3. Farkas, Daniel & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1979. "The Borda Rule and Pareto Stability: A Comment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1305-1306, September.
    4. Lerer, Ehud & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1985. "Some general results on the metric rationalization for social decision rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 191-201, October.
    5. Baigent, Nick, 1987. "Metric rationalisation of social choice functions according to principles of social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 59-65, February.
    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. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Arkadii Slinko, 2015. "Distance rationalization of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(2), pages 345-377, September.
    2. Bhattacharya, Mihir & Gravel, Nicolas, 2021. "Is the preference of the majority representative ?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 87-94.
    3. Muhammad Mahajne & Shmuel Nitzan & Oscar Volij, 2015. "Level $$r$$ r consensus and stable social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 805-817, December.
    4. Shmuel Nitzan, 2010. "Demystifying the ‘metric approach to social compromise with the unanimity criterion’," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(1), pages 25-28, June.
    5. Bredereck, Robert & Chen, Jiehua & Woeginger, Gerhard J., 2016. "Are there any nicely structured preference profiles nearby?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 61-73.
    6. Mihir Bhattacharya & Nicolas Gravel, 2019. "Is the Preference of the Majority Representative?," Working Papers 1028, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    7. Estefanía García & José L. Jimeno & Joaquín Pérez, 2013. "New Voting Correspondences Obtained from a Distance-Based Framework," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 379-388, May.
    8. Muhammad Mahajne & Shmuel Nitzan & Oscar Volij, 2013. "LEVEL r CONSENSUS AND STABLE SOCIAL CHOICE," Working Papers 1305, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    9. Bednay, Dezsö & Moskalenko, Anna & Tasnádi, Attila, 2016. "Searching for the ‘least’ and ‘most’ dictatorial rules," Working Papers 2072/261532, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    10. Benjamin Hadjibeyli & Mark C. Wilson, 2019. "Distance rationalization of anonymous and homogeneous voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(3), pages 559-583, March.
    11. Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2016. "Is majority consistency possible?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(2), pages 287-299, February.
    12. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Arkadii Slinko, 2012. "Rationalizations of Condorcet-consistent rules via distances of hamming type," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(4), pages 891-905, October.
    13. Marcus Pivato, 2013. "Voting rules as statistical estimators," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 581-630, February.
    14. Pivato, Marcus, 2017. "Epistemic democracy with correlated voters," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 51-69.
    15. Eyal Baharad & Leif Danziger, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule is Optimal?," CESifo Working Paper Series 6851, CESifo.
    16. Baharad, Eyal & Danziger, Leif, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule Is Optimal?," IZA Discussion Papers 11287, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Pivato, Marcus, 2013. "Variable-population voting rules," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 210-221.
    18. Marcus Pivato, 2016. "Asymptotic utilitarianism in scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 431-458, August.
    19. 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.
    20. Pivato, Marcus, 2015. "Condorcet meets Bentham," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 58-65.

    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:matsoc:v:72:y:2014:i:c:p:14-23. 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/505565 .

    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.