IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v23y2011i4p448-462.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Representing collective reasons for group decisions: The judgment aggregation problem revisited

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Knops

    (Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham, UK, a.knops@bham.ac.uk)

Abstract

This article argues that the discursive dilemma and the judgement aggregation which causes it are based on a misconception of what it means for a group to give reasons for a democratic decision. Judgement aggregation analyses fail to distinguish between the procedure for determining such a decision, which should involve a vote of all group members, and the process for determining the reasons for such a decision, which should only take account of the views of the members that supported that decision. On the basis of this improved interpretation, the article advances a method for representing reasons for group decisions that is both democratic and rational, thus avoiding the choice between these apparently incompatible goals suggested by the discursive dilemma.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Knops, 2011. "Representing collective reasons for group decisions: The judgment aggregation problem revisited," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(4), pages 448-462, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:23:y:2011:i:4:p:448-462
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629811416321
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629811416321
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629811416321?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franz Dietrich, 2007. "A generalised model of judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(4), pages 529-565, June.
    2. List, Christian & Pettit, Philip, 2002. "Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 89-110, April.
    3. Anand, Paul & Pattanaik, Prasanta & Puppe, Clemens (ed.), 2009. "The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199290420.
    4. List, Christian, 2010. "The theory of judgment aggregation: an introductory review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 27596, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Kornhauser, Lewis A, 1992. "Modeling Collegial Courts. II. Legal Doctrine," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 441-470, October.
    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. List, Christian & Polak, Ben, 2010. "Introduction to judgment aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 441-466, March.
    2. Philippe Mongin, 2012. "The doctrinal paradox, the discursive dilemma, and logical aggregation theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 315-355, September.
    3. Conal Duddy & Ashley Piggins, 2012. "A measure of distance between judgment sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(4), pages 855-867, October.
    4. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2013. "Propositionwise judgment aggregation: the general case," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 1067-1095, April.
    5. Dietrich, Franz & Mongin, Philippe, 2010. "The premiss-based approach to judgment aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 562-582, March.
    6. Carl Claussen & Øistein Røisland, 2010. "A quantitative discursive dilemma," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(1), pages 49-64, June.
    7. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2010. "The impossibility of unbiased judgment aggregation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 281-299, March.
    8. Mongin, Philippe & Dietrich, Franz, 2011. "An interpretive account of logical aggregation theory," HEC Research Papers Series 941, HEC Paris.
    9. Philippe Mongin, 2011. "Judgment aggregation," Working Papers hal-00579346, HAL.
    10. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2021. "Dynamically rational judgment aggregation," Post-Print halshs-03140090, HAL.
    11. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2014. "From degrees of belief to beliefs: Lessons from judgment-aggregation theory," MPRA Paper 58257, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Aureli Alabert & Mercè Farré, 2022. "The doctrinal paradox: comparison of decision rules in a probabilistic framework," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(4), pages 863-895, May.
    13. List, Christian, 2010. "The theory of judgment aggregation: an introductory review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 27596, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Aureli Alabert & Mercè Farré & Rubén Montes, 2023. "Optimal Decision Rules for the Discursive Dilemma," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 889-923, August.
    15. Zoi Terzopoulou & Ulle Endriss, 2019. "Strategyproof judgment aggregation under partial information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(3), pages 415-442, October.
    16. García-Bermejo, Juan Carlos, 2013. "A Non-Proposition-Wise Variant of Majority Voting for Aggregating Judgments," Working Papers in Economic Theory 2013/02, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain), Department of Economic Analysis (Economic Theory and Economic History).
    17. Dietrich, Franz, 2012. "Judgment aggregation and the discursive dilemma," MPRA Paper 36772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2017. "Probabilistic opinion pooling generalized. Part one: general agendas," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 747-786, April.
    19. Nehring, Klaus & Pivato, Marcus & Puppe, Clemens, 2014. "The Condorcet set: Majority voting over interconnected propositions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 268-303.
    20. Nehring, Klaus & Pivato, Marcus & Puppe, Clemens, 2011. "Condorcet admissibility: Indeterminacy and path-dependence under majority voting on interconnected decisions," MPRA Paper 32434, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:sae:jothpo:v:23:y:2011:i:4:p:448-462. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.