IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/eee/monogr/9780124033504.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

Arrow Impossibility Theorems

Editor

Listed:
  • Shell, Karl

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly, Jerry S.

Abstract

Arrow Impossibility Theorems is a 10-chapter text that describes existing impossibility theorems. This book explores a number of formalizations of ethical constraints of the theorems. After an introduction to the framework and notation for Arrow impossibility theorems, this book goes on discussing some concepts and an apparatus of relations among those concepts which are important for the theorems. Other chapters present some impossibility results that serve to point out serious difficulties in some plausible escape routes from the theorems of earlier chapters. The final chapter describes important areas of research that have arisen in the collective choice field in the transition away from studying the conditions of Arrow's theorem alone to the totality of all impossibility theorems. This book is intended primarily for economists.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly, Jerry S., 1978. "Arrow Impossibility Theorems," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 1, number 9780124033504 edited by Shell, Karl.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:monogr:9780124033504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780124033504
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. A. Dawid & M. DeGroot & J. Mortera & R. Cooke & S. French & C. Genest & M. Schervish & D. Lindley & K. McConway & R. Winkler, 1995. "Coherent combination of experts' opinions," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 4(2), pages 263-313, December.
    2. Hannu Nurmi, 2001. "Resolving Group Choice Paradoxes Using Probabilistic and Fuzzy Concepts," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 177-199, March.
    3. Taradas Bandyopadhyay, 2011. "Choice procedures and power structure in social decisions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(4), pages 597-608, October.
    4. H. Reiju Mihara, 1997. "Anonymity and neutrality in Arrow's Theorem with restricted coalition algebras," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 14(4), pages 503-512.
    5. Perez, J. & Barba-Romero, S., 1995. "Three practical criteria of comparison among ordinal preference aggregating rules," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 473-487, September.
    6. Andy Stirling, 2012. "Opening Up the Politics of Knowledge and Power in Bioscience," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-5, January.
    7. Vincenzo Denicolò, 1996. "An Elementary Proof Of Arrow'S Impossibility Theorem," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 47(4), pages 432-435, December.
    8. Osherson, Daniel & Vardi, Moshe Y., 2006. "Aggregating disparate estimates of chance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 148-173, July.
    9. J. P. Arias-Nicolás & C. J. Pérez & J. Martín, 2008. "A logistic regression-based pairwise comparison method to aggregate preferences," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 237-247, May.
    10. Maksim Gladyshev, 2019. "Vulnerability Of Voting Paradoxes As A Criteria For Voting Procedure Selection," HSE Working papers WP BRP 70/PS/2019, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    11. Mario Fedrizzi & Michele Fedrizzi & R. A. Marques Pereira, 2007. "Consensus Modelling In Group Decision Making: Dynamical Approach Based On Fuzzy Preferences," New Mathematics and Natural Computation (NMNC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(02), pages 219-237.
    12. Andrew Stirling, 1998. "Risk at a turning point?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 97-109, April.
    13. Midori Hirokawa, 2003. "The Possibility of Issue‐Specific Decisions on Multiple Social Choice Issues," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 54(1), pages 86-100, March.
    14. Hannu Nurmi, 1980. "Majority rule: Second thoughts and refutations," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 743-765, December.
    15. Tsoukias, Alexis, 2008. "From decision theory to decision aiding methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 138-161, May.
    16. Hannu Nurmi, 1989. "Computational Approaches to Bargaining and Choice," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 1(4), pages 407-426, October.
    17. Simon French & Nikolaos Argyris, 2018. "Decision Analysis and Political Processes," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 208-222, December.
    18. Henry Brady, 1989. "Factor and ideal point analysis for interpersonally incomparable data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 54(2), pages 181-202, June.
    19. Mario Fedrizzi & Janusz Kacprzyk & Hannu Nurmi, 1996. "How different are social choice functions: a rough sets approach," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 87-99, February.
    20. Randall, Alan, 1982. "Policy Science In The Land-Grant Complex: A Perspective On Natural Resource Economics," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-8, July.
    21. Peter Fishburn & Steven Brams, 1984. "Manipulability of voting by sincere truncation of preferences," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 397-410, January.
    22. Andranik Tangian, 2010. "Computational application of the mathematical theory of democracy to Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem (how dictatorial are Arrow’s dictators?)," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(1), pages 129-161, June.
    23. Armajac Raventós-Pujol & María J. Campión & Esteban Induráin, 2020. "Decomposition and Arrow-Like Aggregation of Fuzzy Preferences," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-18, March.
    24. Nurmi, Hannu & Kacprzyk, Janusz & Fedrizzi, Mario, 1996. "Probabilistic, fuzzy and rough concepts in social choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 264-277, December.
    25. Brandt, Felix & Harrenstein, Paul, 2011. "Set-rationalizable choice and self-stability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(4), pages 1721-1731, July.

    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:eee:monogr:9780124033504. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.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.