IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v93y2022i3d10.1007_s11238-021-09863-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of unconditional preferences on Sen’s paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Keith L. Dougherty

    (University of Georgia)

  • Julian Edward

    (Florida International University)

Abstract

Sen’s Liberal paradox describes a conflict between weak Pareto, minimal liberalism, and either transitivity or a best element over a domain of individual preferences. This paper examines variants of that paradox with varying amounts of unconditional preferences. We define a notion of unconditional preferences under which, in the absence of Pareto, there can be no cycles. We then define a stronger condition, that makes an individual’s preferences for her own private attributes independent of all other attributes. Under this assumption, there can be no cycles with or without Pareto. We also show there exists a social decision function satisfying those conditions. We then determine the probability of a cycle assuming a much weaker independence condition that does not restrict the domain. This probability converges to one as the number of non-private attributes within the social states increases. Finally, we use simulations to determine the probability that liberalism and Pareto conflict with best elements, maximal elements, and transitivity separately.

Suggested Citation

  • Keith L. Dougherty & Julian Edward, 2022. "The effect of unconditional preferences on Sen’s paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(3), pages 427-447, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:93:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-021-09863-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-021-09863-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-021-09863-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-021-09863-8?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. Gibbard, Allan, 1974. "A Pareto-consistent libertarian claim," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 388-410, April.
    2. Keith L. Dougherty & Julian Edward, 2011. "The Calculus of Consent and Constitutional Design," Studies in Public Choice, Springer, number 978-0-387-98171-0, December.
    3. Sen, Amartya Kumar, 1970. "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal," Scholarly Articles 3612779, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    4. Sen, Amartya, 1970. "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(1), pages 152-157, Jan.-Feb..
    5. Mathias Risse, 2001. "What to Make of the Liberal Paradox?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 169-196, March.
    6. Saari,Donald G., 2001. "Decisions and Elections," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521004046, September.
    7. William Gehrlein, 2002. "Condorcet's paradox and the likelihood of its occurrence: different perspectives on balanced preferences ," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 171-199, March.
    8. Chung, Hun, 2019. "The Impossibility Of Liberal Rights In A Diverse World," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 1-27, March.
    9. M. J. Farrell, 1976. "Liberalism in the Theory of Social Choice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 43(1), pages 3-10.
    10. Suzumura, Kotaro, 2011. "Chapter Twenty-Three - Welfarism, Individual Rights, and Procedural Fairness," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 23, pages 605-685, Elsevier.
    11. Michael Munger, 2008. "Economic choice, political decision, and the problem of limits," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 507-522, December.
    12. Julian H. Blau, 1975. "Liberal Values and Independence," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 42(3), pages 395-401.
    13. Saari,Donald G., 2008. "Disposing Dictators, Demystifying Voting Paradoxes," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521516051, September.
    14. Saari,Donald G., 2001. "Decisions and Elections," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521808163, September.
    15. Piggins, Ashley & Salerno, Gillian, 2016. "Sen cycles and externalities," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 25-27.
    16. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    17. Saari,Donald G., 2008. "Disposing Dictators, Demystifying Voting Paradoxes," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521731607, September.
    18. List, Christian, 2004. "The Impossibility Of A Paretian Republican? Some Comments On Pettit And Sen," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 65-87, April.
    19. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    20. Itai Sher, 2018. "Evaluating Allocations of Freedom," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(612), pages 65-94, July.
    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. Piggins, Ashley & Salerno, Gillian, 2016. "Sen cycles and externalities," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 25-27.
    2. John W. Patty & Elizabeth Maggie Penn, 2019. "A defense of Arrow’s independence of irrelevant alternatives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 145-164, April.
    3. Lingfang (Ivy) Li & Donald Saari, 2008. "Sen’s theorem: geometric proof, new interpretations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(3), pages 393-413, October.
    4. Herrade Igersheim, 2013. "Invoking a Cartesian product structure on social states," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 463-477, April.
    5. Perote-Pena, Juan & Piggins, Ashley, 2005. "Pareto efficiency with spatial rights," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 265-283, April.
    6. Herrade Igersheim, 2006. "Libéralisme de la liberté versus libéralisme du bonheur. Le cas du paradoxe libéral-parétien," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(3), pages 389-398.
    7. Maurice Salles, 2006. "La théorie du choix social : de l'importance des mathématiques," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 200617, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    8. Kotaro Suzumura, 2002. "Introduction to social choice and welfare," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 442, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    9. Robi Ragan, 2015. "Computational social choice," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 5, pages 67-80, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Bezalel Peleg & Ron Holzman, 2017. "Representations of Political Power Structures by Strategically Stable Game Forms: A Survey," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, October.
    11. Aki Lehtinen, 2011. "A welfarist critique of social choice theory," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(3), pages 359-381, July.
    12. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Arrow’s decisive coalitions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 463-505, March.
    13. Christian Seidl, 1990. "On the impossibility of a generalization of the libertarian resolution of the liberal paradox," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 71-88, February.
    14. Herrade Igersheim, 2005. "Extending Xu's results to Arrow''s Impossibility Theorem," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(13), pages 1-6.
    15. Conal Duddy & Ashley Piggins & William Zwicker, 2016. "Aggregation of binary evaluations: a Borda-like approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(2), pages 301-333, February.
    16. 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.
    17. Ben McQuillin & Robert Sugden, 2011. "The representation of alienable and inalienable rights: games in transition function form," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(4), pages 683-706, October.
    18. Shin Sato, 2012. "On strategy-proof social choice under categorization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(3), pages 455-471, March.
    19. Antoinette Baujard, 2006. "L'estimation des préférences individuelles en vue de la décision publique. Problèmes, paradoxes, enjeux," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 175(4), pages 51-63.
    20. Lars-Gunnar Svensson & Pär Torstensson, 2008. "Strategy-proof allocation of multiple public goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(2), pages 181-196, February.

    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:93:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-021-09863-8. 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: 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.