Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 179, Issue 1–2, pp 125–131 | Cite as

Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem stretching to other fields

  • Wulf GaertnerEmail author
Article

Abstract

Arrow’s impossibility result not only had a profound influence on welfare economics, but was, as this paper shows, also widely discussed in philosophy of science and in the engineering design literature.

Keywords

Arrow’s impossibility theorem Social choice Philosophy of science Engineering design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to an anonymous referee and the editor of this journal for several perceptive comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Arrow, K. J. ([1951] 1963). Social choice and individual values, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Dym, C. L., Wood, W. H., & Scott, M. J. (2002). Rank ordering engineering designs: Pairwise comparison charts and Borda counts. Research in Engineering Design, 13, 236–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Franssen, M. (2005). Arrow’s theorem, multi-criteria decision problems and multi-attribute preferences in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, 16, 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Franssen, M., & Bucciarelli, L. L. (2004). On rationality in engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 126, 945–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gaertner, W. (2001). Domain conditions in social choice theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gaertner, W. (2009). A primer in social choice theory (rev ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gaertner, W. (2016). Aggregating qualitative verdicts: From social choice to engineering design. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 5, 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaertner, W., & Wüthrich, N. (2016). Evaluating competing theories via a common language of qualitative verdicts. Synthese, 193, 3293–3309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kuhn, Th S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kuhn, Th. S. (1974, 1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In Th. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tensionselected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 320–339). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Morreau, M. (2014). Mr. Fit, Mr. Simplicity and Mr. Scope: From social choice to theory choice. Erkenntnis, 79, 1253–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Morreau, M. (2015). Theory choice and social choice: Kuhn vindicated. Mind, 124(493), 239–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Okasha, S. (2011). Theory choice and social choice: Kuhn vs. Arrow. Mind, 129(477), 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rizza, D. (2014). Arrow’s theorem and theory choice. Synthese, 191, 1847–1856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Saari, D. G. (1995). Geometry of voting. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Samuelson, P. A. (1967). Arrow’s mathematical politics. In S. Hook (Ed.), Human values and economic policy (pp. 41–52). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Scanlon, Th M. (1998). What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Scott, M. J., & Antonsson, E. K. (1999). Arrow’s theorem and engineering design decision making. Research in Engineering Design, 11, 218–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sen, A. (1970). Collective choice and social welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
  21. Sen, A. (1977). On weights and measures: Informational constraints in social welfare analysis. Econometrica, 45, 1539–1572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Stegenga, J. (2015). Theory choice and social choice: Okasha versus Sen. Mind, 124(493), 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Strasnick, St. (1976). Social choice and the derivation of Rawls’s difference principle. The Journal of Philosophy, 73, 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Suppes, P. (1966). Some formal models of grading principles. Synthese, 16, 284–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Svensson, L.-G. (1977). Social justice and fair distributions. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
  27. Temkin, L. S. (1993). Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Weber, M. (2011). Experimentation versus theory choice: A social-epistemological approach. In H. B. Schmidt, D. Sirtes, & M. Weber (Eds.), Collective epistemology (pp. 1–26). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of OsnabrueckOsnabrueckGermany
  2. 2.CPNSSLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations