Individual and Social Choices

Similar documents
Market Outcomes: Efficient or Fair?

Gibbard s Theorem. Patrick Le Bihan. 24. April Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence

Roberts Theorem with Neutrality. A Social Welfare Ordering Approach

Fair Divsion in Theory and Practice

Quasi-transitive and Suzumura consistent relations

Progress, tbe Universal LaW of f'laiare; Tbodgbt. tbe 3olVer)t of fier Problems. C H IC A G O. J U N E

Constitutional Rights and Pareto Efficiency

Comparing impossibility theorems

Fundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics

Market Equilibrium and the Core

9 RELATIONS. 9.1 Reflexive, symmetric and transitive relations. MATH Foundations of Pure Mathematics

Lecture Notes, Lectures 22, 23, 24. Voter preferences: Majority votes A > B, B > C. Transitivity requires A > C but majority votes C > A.

EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS (NOTES FOR STUDENTS) 1. RELATIONS

MATH 433 Applied Algebra Lecture 14: Functions. Relations.

Advanced Microeconomics Note 1: Preference and choice

IMPOSSIBILITY THEOREMS IN MULTIPLE VON WRIGHT S PREFERENCE LOGIC**

General Equilibrium with Production

Definitions: A binary relation R on a set X is (a) reflexive if x X : xrx; (f) asymmetric if x, x X : [x Rx xr c x ]

An Introduction to Modal Logic V

Michel Le Breton and John A. Weymark

Roberts Theorem with Neutrality. A Social Welfare Ordering Approach

Foundations of algebra

Pareto Efficiency (also called Pareto Optimality)

Lecture 7: Relations

arxiv: v2 [math.co] 14 Apr 2011

Market Equilibrium Price: Existence, Properties and Consequences

3. R = = on Z. R, S, A, T.

Mechanism Design with Two Alternatives in Quasi-Linear Environments

Exercise 1.2. Suppose R, Q are two binary relations on X. Prove that, given our notation, the following are equivalent:

Chapter 6. Relations. 6.1 Relations

Welfare Economics: Lecture 12

Preference Orderings

Relations. Relations. Definition. Let A and B be sets.

Week 4-5: Binary Relations

Chapter 1 - Preference and choice

Arrow s Impossibility Theorem: Preference Diversity in a Single-Profile World

TOPOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF YAO S ROUGH SET

Mechanism Design with Two Alternatives in Quasi-Linear Environments

Social Choice and Mechanism Design - Part I.2. Part I.2: Social Choice Theory Summer Term 2011

Week 4-5: Generating Permutations and Combinations

Follow links for Class Use and other Permissions. For more information send to:

Arrow s Impossibility Theorem: Two Simple Single-Profile Versions

Valued relations aggregation with the Borda method.

Hans Peters, Souvik Roy, Soumyarup Sadhukhan, Ton Storcken

Relations, Functions, Binary Relations (Chapter 1, Sections 1.2, 1.3)

Market Failure: Externalities

Static Decision Theory Under Certainty

The Axiomatic Method in Social Choice Theory:

Engineering Decisions

Logic and Social Choice Theory. A Survey. ILLC, University of Amsterdam. November 16, staff.science.uva.

Roberts Theorem with Neutrality: A Social Welfare Ordering Approach

Arrow s Impossibility Theorem and Experimental Tests of Preference Aggregation

A Role of Common Morality in Social Choice

Strategic Manipulation and Regular Decomposition of Fuzzy Preference Relations

Axiomatic Decision Theory

Efficiency and Incentives in Randomized Social Choice

Week 4-5: Binary Relations

An Axiomatic Approach to ``Preference for Freedom of Choice'' 1

Introduction to Predicate Logic Part 1. Professor Anita Wasilewska Lecture Notes (1)

Multi-profile intertemporal social choice: a survey

Expected Scott-Suppes Utility Representation

Single-plateaued choice

Social Welfare Functions that Satisfy Pareto, Anonymity, and Neutrality: Countable Many Alternatives. Donald E. Campbell College of William and Mary

1 Introduction FUZZY VERSIONS OF SOME ARROW 0 S TYPE RESULTS 1. Louis Aimé Fono a,2, Véronique Kommogne b and Nicolas Gabriel Andjiga c

Rationalization of Collective Choice Functions by Games with Perfect Information. Yongsheng Xu

An axiomatization of the mixed utilitarian-maximin social welfare orderings

Relations and Equivalence Relations

Recap Social Choice Functions Fun Game Mechanism Design. Mechanism Design. Lecture 13. Mechanism Design Lecture 13, Slide 1

CS 514, Mathematics for Computer Science Mid-semester Exam, Autumn 2017 Department of Computer Science and Engineering IIT Guwahati

PHIL 308S: Voting Theory and Fair Division

3.1 Arrow s Theorem. We study now the general case in which the society has to choose among a number of alternatives

Weak Choice Principles and Forcing Axioms

Foundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes

ON SOME PROPERTIES OF ROUGH APPROXIMATIONS OF SUBRINGS VIA COSETS

arxiv: v2 [math.gn] 29 Oct 2013

Notes on Social Choice Theory

FACULTY FEATURE ARTICLE 5 Arrow s Impossibility Theorem: Two Simple Single-Profile Versions

First-Order Logic Formalisation of Impossibility Theorems in Preference Aggregation

Silvio Valentini Dip. di Matematica - Università di Padova

Economics 204 Summer/Fall 2017 Lecture 1 Monday July 17, 2017

Generating Permutations and Combinations

Modal logics: an introduction

Are Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility Indeterminate? Christian List

The Review of Economic Studies, Ltd.

Partial lecture notes THE PROBABILITY OF VIOLATING ARROW S CONDITIONS

Choice, Preferences and Utility

Practice Second Midterm Exam I

Suzumura-consistent relations: an overview

13 Social choice B = 2 X X. is the collection of all binary relations on X. R = { X X : is complete and transitive}

Existence Theorems of Continuous Social Aggregation for Infinite Discrete Alternatives

Discrete Mathematics Fall 2018 Midterm Exam Prof. Callahan. Section: NetID: Multiple Choice Question (30 questions in total, 4 points each)

Acyclic and indifference-transitive collective choice functions.

Lecture 7. Logic III. Axiomatic description of properties of relations.

Foundations of Mathematics Worksheet 2

Integer Programming on Domains Containing Inseparable Ordered Pairs

Choice, Consideration Sets and Attribute Filters

MAXIMAL POSSIBILITY AND MINIMAL DICTATORIAL COVERS OF DOMAINS

Introduction to General Equilibrium: Framework.

1. what conditional independencies are implied by the graph. 2. whether these independecies correspond to the probability distribution

CAHIER CANDIDATE STABILITY AND NONBINARY SOCIAL CHOICE. Lars EHLERS and John A. WEYMARK

Transcription:

Individual and Social Choices Ram Singh Lecture 17 November 07, 2016 Ram Singh: (DSE) Social Choice November 07, 2016 1 / 14

Preferences and Choices I Let X be the set of alternatives R i be the weak preference relation for individual i, defined over X; i = 1,..., n P i be the strict preference relation for individual i R be the set of individual preference relations O be the set of individual preference relations that are orderings; O R. (R 1,..., R n ) R n be a profile of preference relations - one for each individuals. That is, R n = {(R 1,..., R n ) R i R for each i = 1,..., n} R be a weak Social preference relation; R R Ram Singh: (DSE) Social Choice November 07, 2016 2 / 14

Preferences and Choices II Choice Set: Take any S X. The choice set generated by the preference relation R defined over the set S is given by C(S, R), where x C(S, R) if and only if ( y S) [xry], i.e., C(S, R) = {x ( y S) [xry]} Let S X. An alternative x is a best elements of S iff ( y S)[xRy] A set C(S, R) is the set of best elements of S iff [x C(S, R)] ( y S)[xRy] Ram Singh: (DSE) Social Choice November 07, 2016 3 / 14

Preferences and Choices III Let S X. An alternative x is a Maximual elements of S iff: ( y S)(yPx)] A set M(S, R) is the set of Maximual elements of S iff: For all x S, [x M(S, R)] [ ( y S)(yPx)] Suppose xry and yrx. So, M(S, R) = {x, y}. But C(S, R) =. Therefore, x M(S, R) does not mean that for all y S, xry holds. Ram Singh: (DSE) Social Choice November 07, 2016 4 / 14

Preferences and Choices IV Proposition For any give S X and preference relation R, C(S, R) M(S, R). Proposition If S X is finite and and preference relation R is quasi-ordering, then M(S, R) is non-empty. Let S = {x 1,..., x n }. Let a 1 = x 1, { x2, if x a 2 = 2 Px 1 a 1, otherwise. { xj+1, if x a j+1 = j+1 Pa j a j, otherwise. You can verify that a n is a maximal element. Ram Singh: (DSE) Social Choice November 07, 2016 5 / 14

Social Choice Rules (SCR) I Assumption Every social preference relation R has strict preference relation P and indifference preference relation I associated with it. P and I are such that: For all x, y X xpy xry and (yrx) xiy xry andy Rx Assumption We assume individual preferences are orderings, i.e., are reflexive, complete and transitive. That is, for all i = 1,.., n, R i O. Ram Singh: (DSE) Social Choice November 07, 2016 6 / 14

Social Choice Rules (SCR) II A SCR is a function f : R n R, such that, ( (R 1,..., R n ) R n )[f (R 1,..., R n ) = R R]. A SCR f is decisive iff (R 1,..., R n ) R n, the social preference relation generated by f is complete, i.e., iff (R 1,..., R n ) R n, f (R 1,..., R n ) = R is complete. A SCR is rational if (R 1,..., R n ) R n, the social preference relation generated by f, i.e., f (R 1,..., R n ) = R, is an ordering. Ram Singh: (DSE) Social Choice November 07, 2016 7 / 14

Pareto Criterion as SCR I Pareto Criterion: For x, y X, x Ry [( i N)[xR i y]] x Py [x Ry & (y Rx)] xīy [x Ry & y Rx] Proposition Relation R is a quasi-ordering. That is, it is reflexive and transitive. Ram Singh: (DSE) Social Choice November 07, 2016 8 / 14

Pareto Criterion as SCR II The Pareto Criterion is the SCR iff xry x Ry, xpy [x Ry & (y Rx)] xiy [x Ry & y Rx] Proposition If Pareto Criterion is used as a SCR, then for any finite S X the set of maximal elements for is non-empty. Ram Singh: (DSE) Social Choice November 07, 2016 9 / 14

Pareto Criterion as SCR III The SCR is Pareto inclusive, i.e., satisfies the Pareto Criterion if: For all x, y X Note: ( i N)[xR i y], i.e., x Ry xry x Ry and y Rx xpy If Pareto Criterion is used as the SCR, then the SCR is Pareto inclusive However, a Pareto inclusive SCR can (will) be different from the Pareto Criterion Ram Singh: (DSE) Social Choice November 07, 2016 10 / 14

Pareto Criterion as SCR IV Proposition Pareto Criterion is a decisive SCR iff ( x, y X)[( i N)[xP i y] ( j N)[xR j y]] Suppose, i N such that xp i y, and at the same time j N such that yp j x. In that case, we have Therefore, the condition is necessary. x Ry and (y Rx), i.e., Ram Singh: (DSE) Social Choice November 07, 2016 11 / 14

SCRs: Desirable Features I Take any D O n. A SCR is called a SWF, if f : D R. That is, ( (R 1,..., R n ) D)[f (R 1,..., R n ) = R O]. Condition U: A SCR f satisfies condition of unrestricted domain, if its domain is O n. That is, f generates a social preference relation for every possible profile of individual preferences. Ram Singh: (DSE) Social Choice November 07, 2016 12 / 14

SCRs: Desirable Features II Condition P: A SCR f satisfies condition of Weak Pareto Principle, if ( x, y X)( i N)[xP i y xpy]. Suppose, S = {x, y}. Now, condition I implies the following: ( i N)[xR i y xr i y] C(S, R) = C(S, R ), i.e., ( i N)[xR i y xr i y] (xry iff xr y) and (yrx iff yr x). Ram Singh: (DSE) Social Choice November 07, 2016 13 / 14

SCRs: Desirable Features III Condition I: Take any S X, and ANY two profiles of individual orderings, say (R 1,..., R n ) and (R 1,..., R n). Let f (R 1,..., R n ) = R and f (R 1,..., R n) = R. A SCR f satisfies condition of independence of irrelevant alternatives if the following holds: ( x, y S)( i N)[xR i y xr i y] C(S, R) = C(S, R ) Condition D: A SCR f satisfies condition of non-dictatorship, if there is NO individual i N such that ( x, y X)[xP i y xpy]. Ram Singh: (DSE) Social Choice November 07, 2016 14 / 14