IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/miceco/v3y2015i1p69-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introducing Intransitivities in Social Choice Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Baigent

Abstract

This expository note offers two diagrams that may be helpful when introducing students to social choice theory. The first diagram may help students get a feel for preferences and the Kemeny distance between preferences. This diagram is then used to discuss intransitivities arising from aggregating the preferences of two individuals. It is argued that this provides a better introduction to Arrow’s theorem than the common use of Condorcet cycles. An alternative diagram that can be used for the same purpose or for further exercises is also offered.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Baigent, 2015. "Introducing Intransitivities in Social Choice Theory," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 3(1), pages 69-74, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:miceco:v:3:y:2015:i:1:p:69-74
    DOI: 10.1177/2321022215583386
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2321022215583386
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2321022215583386?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. Graciela Chichilnisky, 1982. "Social Aggregation Rules and Continuity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 97(2), pages 337-352.
    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. Lauwers, Luc, 2000. "Topological social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-39, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2020. "Arrow on domain conditions: a fruitful road to travel," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 237-258, March.
    4. Graciela Chichilnisky, 1996. "A robust theory of resource allocation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, January.
    5. Takashi Hayashi & Michele Lombardi, 2021. "Social discount rate: spaces for agreement," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 9(2), pages 247-257, October.
    6. Chichilnisky, Graciela & Heal, Geoffrey, 1983. "Necessary and sufficient conditions for a resolution of the social choice paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 68-87, October.
    7. François-Régis Mahieu, 1991. "« Dictature » et expression des normes dans la théorie économique des choix collectifs," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 42(3), pages 459-468.
    8. Muto, Nozomu & Sato, Shin, 2016. "Bounded response of aggregated preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 1-15.
    9. Munnich, Akos & Maksa, Gyula & J. Mokken, Robert, 1999. "Collective judgement: combining individual value judgements," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 211-233, May.
    10. Michele Lombardi & Kaname Miyagishima & Roberto Veneziani, 2016. "Liberal Egalitarianism and the Harm Principle," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(597), pages 2173-2196, November.
    11. Juan C. Candeal, 2023. "Social evaluation functionals with an arbitrary set of alternatives," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(2), pages 255-271, August.
    12. Nick Baigent & Daniel Eckert, 2004. "Abstract Aggregations and Proximity Preservation: An Impossibility Result," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 359-366, June.
    13. Daniel Eckert, 2004. "Proximity Preservation in an Anonymous Framework," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(6), pages 1-6.
    14. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2009. "Avoiding extinction: equal treatment of the present and the future," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-25.
    15. Ju, Biung-Ghi, 2004. "Continuous selections from the Pareto correspondence and non-manipulability in exchange economies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 573-592, August.
    16. Askoura, Youcef & Billot, Antoine, 2021. "Social decision for a measure society," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    17. Wu-Hsiung Huang, 2014. "Singularity and Arrow’s paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(3), pages 671-706, March.
    18. Nikita Miku, 2022. "The connection between Arrow theorem and Sperner lemma," Papers 2212.12251, arXiv.org.
    19. I.D.A. Macintyre, 1998. "Two-Person and majority continuous aggregation in 2-good space in Social Choice: a note," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 199-209, April.
    20. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2004:i:6:p:1-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Luc Lauwers, 2009. "The topological approach to the aggregation of preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(3), pages 449-476, September.

    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:miceco:v:3:y:2015:i:1:p:69-74. 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.