Advertisement

Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 587–601 | Cite as

The possibility of Paretian anonymous decision-making with an infinite population

  • Susumu CatoEmail author
Original Paper
  • 99 Downloads

Abstract

This paper considers the trade-off between unanimity and anonymity in collective decision-making with an infinite population. This efficiency-equity trade-off is afundamental difficulty in making a normative judgment in a conflict betweengenerations. In particular, it is known that this trade-off is quite sensitive in the formulation of unanimity axioms. In this study, we consider the trade-off in a preference-aggregation framework instead of the standard utility-aggregationframework. We show that there exists a social welfare function that satisfies I-strong Pareto, independence of irrelevant alternatives, and finite anonymity. This contrasts with an impossibility result in the standard utility-aggregation framework, and this means that the trade-off is also sensitive for background frameworks of aggregations.

Keywords

Social choice Intergenerational equity Possibility theorem Unanimity Anonymity Ultrafilter 

JEL Classification

D63 D64 D71 

Notes

References

  1. Aliprantis CD, Border KC (2006) Infinite dimensional analysis: a Hitchhiker’s guide, 3rd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong TE (1980) Arrow’s theorem with restricted coalition algebras. J Math Econ 7(1):55–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow KJ (1951) Social choice and individual values, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Asheim GB (2010) Intergenerational equity. Annu Rev Econ 2:197–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basu K, Mitra T (2003) Aggregating infinite utility streams with intergenerational equity: the impossibility of being Paretian. Econometrica 71(5):1557–1563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cato S (2012) Social choice without the Pareto principle: a comprehensive analysis. Soc Choice Welf 39:869–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cato S (2013a) Social choice, the strong Pareto principle, and conditional decisiveness. Theory Decis 75:563–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cato S (2013b) Quasi-decisiveness, quasi-ultrafilter, and social quasi-orderings. Soc Choice Welf 41:169–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cato S (2016) Rationality and operators: the formal structure of preferences. Springer, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cato S (2017) Unanimity, anonymity, and infinite population. J Math Econ 71:28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crespo JA, Nunez C, Rincon-Zapatero JP (2009) On the impossibility of representing infinite utility streams. Econ Theory 40(1):47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diamond PA (1965) The evaluation of infinite utility streams. Econometrica 33:170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fishburn PC (1970) Arrow’s impossibility theorem: concise proof and infinite voters. J Econ Theory 2:103–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleurbaey M (2009) Beyond GDP: the quest for a measure of social welfare. J Econ Lit 47(4):1029–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomberg A, Martinelli C, Torres R (2005) Anonymity in large societies. Soc Choice Welf 25(1):187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansson B (1976) The existence of group preference functions. Public Choice 28:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iritani J, Kamo T, Nagahisa RI (2013) Vetoer and tie-making group theorems for indifference-transitive aggregation rules. Soc Choice Welf 40:155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamaga K, Kojima T (2009) \({\cal{Q}}\)-anonymous social welfare relations on infinite utility streams. Soc Choice Welf 33:405–413Google Scholar
  19. Kamaga K, Kojima T (2010) On the leximin and utilitarian overtaking criteria with extended anonymity. Soc Choice Welf 35:377–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kirman AP, Sondermann D (1972) Arrow’s theorem, many agents, and invisible dictators. J Econ Theory 5:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lauwers L (1997a) Rawlsian equity and generalised utilitarianism with an infinite population. Econ Theory 9:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lauwers L (1997b) Infinite utility: Insisting on strong monotonicity. Aust J Philos 75:222–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lauwers L (2010) Ordering infinite utility streams comes at the cost of a non-Ramsey set. J Math Econ 46(1):32–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lauwers L (2012) Intergenerational equity, efficiency, and constructibility. Econ Theory 49(2):227–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lauwers L, Van Liedekerke L (1995) Ultraproducts and aggregation. J Math Econ 24(3):217–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Man PT, Takayama S (2013) A unifying impossibility theorem. Econ Theory 54(2):249–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mihara HR (1997) Anonymity and neutrality in Arrow’s Theorem with restricted coalition algebras. Soc Choice Welf 14:503–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitra T, Basu K (2007) On the existence of Paretian social welfare relations for infinite utility streams with extended anonymity. In: Roemer J, Suzumura K (eds) Intergenerational equity and sustainability, vol 6. Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muto N, Sato S (2016) Bounded response of aggregated preferences. J Math Econ 65:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ninjbat U (2015) Impossibility theorems are modified and unified. Soc Choice Welf 45(4):849–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Noguchi M (2011) Generic impossibility of Arrow’s impossibility theorem. J Math Econ 47:391–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sakai T (2006) Equitable intergenerational preferences on restricted domains. Soc Choice Welf 27(1):41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sakai T (2010) Intergenerational equity and an explicit construction of welfare criteria. Soc Choice Welf 35:393–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sakai T (2016) Limit representations of intergenerational equity. Soc Choice Welf 47(2):481–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salonen H, Saukkonen K (2005) On continuity of Arrovian social welfare functions. Soc Choice Welf 25(1):85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Takayama S, Yokotani A (2017) Social choice correspondences with infinitely many agents: serial dictatorship. Soc Choice and Welfare 48(3):573–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Torres R (2005) Limiting dictatorial rules. J Math Econ 41(7):913–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Liedekerke L, Lauwers L (1997) Sacrificing the patrol: utilitarianism, future generations and infinity. Econ Philos 13:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Willard S (1970) General topology. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, ReadingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Social ScienceUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations