IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v18y2001i1p23-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ranking opportunity sets: An approach based on the preference for flexibility

Author

Listed:
  • Ricardo Arlegi

    (Departamento de EconomÎa, Universidad Pßblica de Navarra, Campus de ArrosadÎa, 31006 Pamplona, Spain)

  • Jorge Nieto

    (Departamento de EconomÎa, Universidad Pßblica de Navarra, Campus de ArrosadÎa, 31006 Pamplona, Spain)

Abstract

We describe a criterion to evaluate subsets of a finite set of alternatives which are considered as opportunity sets. The axioms for set comparison are motivated within the preference for flexibility framework. We assume the preference over the universal set of alternatives to be made of two disjoint binary relations. The result is the axiomatic characterization of a procedure which is formally similar to the leximax ordering, but in our case it incorporates the presence of some uncertainty about the decision-maker final tastes.

Suggested Citation

  • Ricardo Arlegi & Jorge Nieto, 2001. "Ranking opportunity sets: An approach based on the preference for flexibility," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(1), pages 23-36.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:18:y:2001:i:1:p:23-36
    Note: Received: 20 January 1999/Accepted: 20 October 1999
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00355/papers/1018001/10180023.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pejsachowicz, Leonardo & Toussaert, Séverine, 2017. "Choice deferral, indecisiveness and preference for flexibility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 417-425.
    2. Baharad, Eyal & Nitzan, Shmuel, 2003. "Essential alternatives and set-dependent preferences--an axiomatic approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 121-129, April.
    3. Arlegi, Ritxar & Dimitrov, Dinko, 2016. "Power set extensions of dichotomous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 20-29.
    4. Antoinette Baujard, 2006. "Conceptions of freedom and ranking opportunity sets. A typology," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 200611, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    5. AR. Arlegi & AR. M. Besada & J. Nieto & AR. C. Vázquez, 2006. "Freedom of Choice: The Leximax Criterion in the Infinite Case," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 0608, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
    6. Leonardo Pejsachowicz & Séverine Toussaert, 2017. "Choice deferral, indecisiveness and preference for flexibility," Post-Print hal-02862199, HAL.
    7. Ritxar Arlegi & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde & Mikel Hualde, 2021. "On the aversion to incomplete preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 183-217, March.
    8. Pejsachowicz, Leonardo & Toussaert, Séverine, 2017. "Choice deferral, indecisiveness and preference for flexibility," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 83566, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. James Foster, 2010. "Freedom, Opportunity and Wellbeing," OPHI Working Papers 35, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
    10. Ricardo Arlegi, 2005. "Freedom Of Choice And Conflict Resolution," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 0502, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
    11. Arlegi, Ritxar & Bourgeois-Gironde, Sacha & Hualde, Mikel, 2022. "Attitudes toward choice with incomplete preferences: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 663-679.
    12. Arlegi, R. & Besada, M. & Nieto, J. & Vazquez, C., 2005. "Freedom of choice: the leximax criterion in the infinite case," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, January.

    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:spr:sochwe:v:18:y:2001:i:1:p:23-36. 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.