IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v63y2007i1p79-94.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing and Describing: Sen and the Irrelevance of Independence Alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Neumann

Abstract

Amartya Sen argues that it is not, after all, irrational to reverse preferences when your choices are amplified by an ‘irrelevant’ alternative. He offers examples such as the agent who always picks the next-to-largest piece of cake. Given a choice between a larger and smaller piece, I will prefer the smaller one. But when a third and largest piece in added to my alternatives, I will now prefer the formerly largest piece over the smallest piece. This violates ‘contraction consistency’: a third alternative should not have made any difference in my preferences regarding the first two. Such examples are shown to rely on descriptions which omit features crucial to choice. These features, and all identifying features relevant to my decision, should be included in the descriptions of the alternatives. An adequate description does not smuggle norms into the overt act of choice, but it does include the non-normative characteristics without which my decision-rules, if any, cannot be applied. When alternatives are adequately described, Sen’s inconsistencies disappear. The result is a clearer and more resillent, but also less aggressive notion of behavioral consistency. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Neumann, 2007. "Choosing and Describing: Sen and the Irrelevance of Independence Alternatives," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 79-94, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:63:y:2007:i:1:p:79-94
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-007-9037-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11238-007-9037-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-007-9037-3?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.

    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:kap:theord:v:63:y:2007:i:1:p:79-94. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.