IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cda/wpaper/91.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Extended Partial Orders: A Unifying Structure For Abstract Choice Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Klaus Nehring
  • Selva Demiralp
  • Clemens Puppe

    (Department of Economics, University of California Davis)

Abstract

The concept of a strict extended partial order (SEPO) has turned out to be very useful in explaining (resp. rationalizing) non-binary choice functions. The present paper provides a general account of the concept of extended binary relations, i.e., relations between subsets and elements of a given universal set of alternatives. In particular, we define the concept of a weak extended partial order (WEPO) and show how it can be used in order to represent rankings of opportunity sets that display a ""preference for opportunities."" We also clarify the relationship between SEPOs and WEPOs, which involves a non-trivial condition, called ""strict properness."" Several characterizations of strict (and weak) properness are provided based on which we argue for properness as an appropriate condition demarcating ""choice based"" preference.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaus Nehring & Selva Demiralp & Clemens Puppe, 2003. "Extended Partial Orders: A Unifying Structure For Abstract Choice Theory," Working Papers 91, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:cda:wpaper:91
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.dss.ucdavis.edu/files/bLgbUrVHYoptdEmoqihxmbww/97-6.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Puppe, Clemens, 1996. "An Axiomatic Approach to "Preference for Freedom of Choice"," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 174-199, January.
    2. Sertel, Murat R., 1988. "Choice, hull, continuity and fidelity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 203-206, October.
    3. Johnson, Mark R., 1990. "Information, associativity, and choice requirements," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 440-452, December.
    4. Malishevski, Andrey V., 1994. "Path independence in serial--parallel data processing," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 335-367, June.
    5. Bandyopadhyay, Taradas, 1986. "Rationality, path independence, and the power structure," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 338-348, December.
    6. Sertel, Murat R., 1988. "Characterizing fidelity for reflexive choices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 93-95, February.
    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. Johnson, Mark R. & Dean, Richard A., 2001. "Locally complete path independent choice functions and their lattices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 53-87, July.
    2. Richard A. Dean & Mark R. Johnson, 2000. "Locally Complete Path Independent Choice Functions and Their Lattices," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0622, Econometric Society.
    3. Ballester, Miguel A. & de Miguel, Juan R. & Nieto, Jorge, 2004. "Set comparisons in a general domain: the Indirect Utility Criterion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 139-150, September.
    4. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    5. Falkinger, Josef, 2016. "The order of knowledge and robust action: How to deal with economic uncertainty?," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 10, pages 1-30.
    6. Jimena Galindo & Levent Ülkü, 2020. "Diversity relations over menus," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(2), pages 229-242, August.
    7. James J. Heckman & Chase O. Corbin, 2016. "Capabilities and Skills," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 342-359, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Koshevoy, Gleb & Savaglio, Ernesto, 2023. "On rational choice from lists of sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    10. Antoinette Baujard, 2007. "Commensurable freedoms in the capability approach," Post-Print halshs-00294563, HAL.
    11. V. Danilov & G. Koshevoy & E. Savaglio, 2015. "Hyper-relations, choice functions, and orderings of opportunity sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 51-69, June.
    12. Königstein, Manfred & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2010. "Efficiency and behavioral considerations in labor negotiations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 599-611, August.
    13. Manfred Königstein & Marie Claire Villeval, 2005. "The Choice of the Agenda in Labor Negotiations: Efficiency and Behavioral Considerations," Post-Print halshs-00175021, HAL.
    14. Ballester, Miguel A. & De Miguel, Juan R., 2006. "On freedom of choice and infinite sets: The Suprafinite Rule," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 291-300, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Gaetano Gaballo & Ernesto Savaglio, 2012. "On revealed diversity," Working Papers 254, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    17. Martin Dufwenberg & Paul Heidhues & Georg Kirchsteiger & Frank Riedel & Joel Sobel, 2011. "Other-Regarding Preferences in General Equilibrium," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(2), pages 613-639.
    18. Prasanta Pattanaik & Yongsheng Xu, 1998. "On Preference and Freedom," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 173-198, April.
    19. Walter Bossert, 1998. "Opportunity Sets and the Measurement of Information," Discussion Papers 98/6, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    20. Arlegi, R. & Dimitrov, D.A., 2004. "On Procedural Freedom of Choice," Discussion Paper 2004-9, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.

    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:cda:wpaper:91. 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: Letters and Science IT Services Unit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/educdus.html .

    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.