IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eej/eeconj/v13y1987i3p281-294.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Voting Paradox and the Possibility of a Social Welfare Function

Author

Listed:
  • Richard L. Carson

Abstract

In this paper, the author argues that a majority voting rule dominates a rule requiring unanimous agreement when a small number of voters is resolving questions of distribution. This is true, even though the majority rule yields no consistent ranking of alternatives, because of Condorcet's (voting) paradox. Nevertheless, under the assumptions given, no voter will have an expected utility from majority voting below his expected utility outcome under the unanimity rule. Each will be better off with majority voting if the change of rules makes any difference. In nontrivial cases, this is a consequence of the comparative efficiency of bargaining under the two rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard L. Carson, 1987. "The Voting Paradox and the Possibility of a Social Welfare Function," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 281-294, Jul-Sep.
    • Handle: RePEc:eej:eeconj:v:13:y:1987:i:3:p:281-294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://web.holycross.edu/RePEc/eej/Archive/Volume13/V13N3P281_294.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    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. 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.
    2. Bergantiños, Gustavo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Monotonicity in sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 338-346.
    3. Yoshihara, Naoki, 2003. "Characterizations of bargaining solutions in production economies with unequal skills," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 256-285, February.
    4. Roma Paolo & Perrone Giovanni, 2010. "Generic Advertising, Brand Advertising and Price Competition: An Analysis of Free-Riding Effects and Coordination Mechanisms," Review of Marketing Science, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-29, October.
    5. Jamie Fairbrother & Konstantinos G. Zografos & Kevin D. Glazebrook, 2020. "A Slot-Scheduling Mechanism at Congested Airports that Incorporates Efficiency, Fairness, and Airline Preferences," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 115-138, January.
    6. Lea Melnikovová, 2017. "Can Game Theory Help to Mitigate Water Conflicts in the Syrdarya Basin?," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 1393-1401.
    7. Daniele Cassese & Paolo Pin, 2018. "Decentralized Pure Exchange Processes on Networks," Papers 1803.08836, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.
    8. Ursula F Ott & Pervez N Ghauri, 2019. "Brexit negotiations: From negotiation space to agreement zones," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(1), pages 137-149, February.
    9. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & António Osório & Josep E. Peris, 2015. "From Bargaining Solutions to Claims Rules: A Proportional Approach," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, March.
    10. Ehtamo, Harri & Kettunen, Eero & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "Searching for joint gains in multi-party negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 54-69, April.
    11. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    12. Hwang, Sung-Ha & Rey-Bellet, Luc, 2021. "Positive feedback in coordination games: Stochastic evolutionary dynamics and the logit choice rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 355-373.
    13. Karna Basu & Kaushik Basu & Tito Cordella, 2016. "Asymmetric Punishment as an Instrument of Corruption Control," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 18(6), pages 831-856, December.
    14. Yakov Babichenko & Leonard J. Schulman, 2015. "Pareto Efficient Nash Implementation Via Approval Voting," Papers 1502.05238, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2017.
    15. Kristal K. Trejo & Julio B. Clempner & Alexander S. Poznyak, 2019. "Computing the Bargaining Approach for Equalizing the Ratios of Maximal Gains in Continuous-Time Markov Chains Games," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 54(3), pages 933-955, October.
    16. Anbarci, Nejat & Skaperdas, Stergios & Syropoulos, Constantinos, 2002. "Comparing Bargaining Solutions in the Shadow of Conflict: How Norms against Threats Can Have Real Effects," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-16, September.
    17. Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2015. "Nash bargaining with (almost) no rationality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 107-109.
    18. Stambaugh, Todd, 2017. "Coincidence of two solutions to Nash’s bargaining problem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 148-151.
    19. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2007. "Bargaining in committees as an extension of Nash's bargaining theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 291-305, January.
    20. Arzu Kıbrıs & Özgür Kıbrıs & Mehmet Yiğit Gürdal, 2022. "Protectionist demands in globalization," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 345-365, September.

    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:eej:eeconj:v:13:y:1987:i:3:p:281-294. 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: Victor Matheson, College of the Holy Cross (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eeaa1ea.html .

    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.