Integer Programming and Arrovian Social Welfare Functions

  • Jay Sethuraman
  • Chung-Piaw Teo
  • Rakesh V. Vohra
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2337)


We formulate the problem of deciding which preference domains admit a non-dictatorial Arrovian Social Welfare Function as one of verifying the feasibility of an integer linear program. Many of the known results about the presence or absence of Arrovian social welfare functions, impossibility theorems in social choice theory, and properties of majority rule etc., can be derived in a simple and unified way from this integer program. We characterize those preference domains that admit a non-dictatorial, neutral Arrovian social welfare Function and give a polyhedral characterization of Arrovian social welfare functions on single-peaked domains.


Integer Programming Majority Rule Valid Inequality Social Welfare Function Hamiltonian Path 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ahuja, R., T. L. Magnanti and J. B. Orlin. (1993). Network Flows: Theory, Applications and Algorithms, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arrow, K.J. (1963). Social Choice and Individual Values, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gibbard, A. (1973). “Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A general result”, Econometrica, 41, 587–602.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. C. Fishburn and J. S. Kelly (1997), Super Arrovian domains with strict preferences, SIAM J. Disc. Math., 11, pp. 83–95.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kalai, E. and E. Muller. (1977). “Characterization of Domains Admitting Non-dictatorial Social Welfare Functions and Non-manipulable Voting Procedures”, J. of Economic Theory, 16,2, 457–469.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalai, E., E. Muller and M. Satterthwaite. (1979). “Social Welfare Functions when Preferences are Convex, Strictly Monotonic and Continuous”, Public Choice, 34, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Le Breton, M. and J. Weymark. (1996). “An Introduction to Arrovian Social Welfare Functions on Economic and Political Domains”. In Collective Decision Making: Social Choice and Political Economy, edited by Norman Schofield, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maskin, E. (1995), “Majority Rule, Social Welfare Functions, and Game Forms”, in K. Basu, P.K. Pattanaik and K. Suzumura, eds., Choice, Welfare and Development (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moulin, H. (1980). “On Strategy-Proofness and Single Peakedness”, Public Choice, 35, 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moulin, H. (1984). “Generalized Condorcet Winners for Single Peaked and Single Plateau Preferences”, Social Choice and Welfare, 1, 127–147.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muller, E. and M. Satterthwaite. (1977). “The Equivalence of Strong Positive Association and Strategy-Proofness”, Journal of Economic Theory, 14, 412–418.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nemhauser, G. and L. Wolsey. (1998). Integer and Combinatorial Optimization, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Satterthwaite, M. (1975). “Strategy-Proofness and Arrow’s Conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions”, J. of Economic Theory, 10, 187–217.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sen, A. (1966). “A Possibility Theorem on Majority Decisions”, Econometrica, vol. 34, Issue 2, 491–499.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Teo, C.P. and J. Sethuraman (1998) “Geometry of fractional stable matchings and its applications”, Mathematics of Operations Research, Vol 23, Number 4, 874–891.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jay Sethuraman
    • 1
  • Chung-Piaw Teo
    • 2
  • Rakesh V. Vohra
    • 3
  1. 1.IEOR DepartmentColumbia UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Decision SciencesNational University of SingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Department of Managerial Economics and Decision Sciences, Kellogg Graduate School of ManagementNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations