IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2409.13236.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A knapsack for collective decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Yurun Ge
  • Lucas Bottcher
  • Tom Chou
  • Maria R. D'Orsogna

Abstract

Collective decision-making is the process through which diverse stakeholders reach a joint decision. Within societal settings, one example is participatory budgeting, where constituents decide on the funding of public projects. How to most efficiently aggregate diverse stakeholder inputs on a portfolio of projects with uncertain long-term benefits remains an open question. We address this problem by studying collective decision-making through the integration of preference aggregation and knapsack allocation methods. Since different stakeholder groups may evaluate projects differently,we examine several aggregation methods that combine their diverse inputs. The aggregated evaluations are then used to fill a ``collective'' knapsack. Among the methods we consider are the arithmetic mean, Borda-type rankings, and delegation to experts. We find that the factors improving an aggregation method's ability to identify projects with the greatest expected long-term value include having many stakeholder groups, moderate variation in their expertise levels, and some degree of delegation or bias favoring groups better positioned to objectively assess the projects. We also discuss how evaluation errors and heterogeneous costs impact project selection. Our proposed aggregation methods are relevant not only in the context of funding public projects but also, more generally, for organizational decision-making under uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Yurun Ge & Lucas Bottcher & Tom Chou & Maria R. D'Orsogna, 2024. "A knapsack for collective decision-making," Papers 2409.13236, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2409.13236
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.13236
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2409.13236. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.