Abstract
In a series of writings, Serge Kolm has examined the conceptual foundations of Arrovian social choice theory (see Kolm, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997). In its choice-theoretic formulation, an Arrovian social choice correspondence specifies the socially best alternatives from each admissible feasible set of alternatives as a function of the individual preferences over the universal set of alternatives. An issue that needs to be addressed when constructing a social choice correspondence is: For what feasible sets of alternatives and for what preference profiles are social decisions required? The rationale for the choice of this domain is one of the issues that Kolm discusses at some length. When considering resource allocation problems, social alternatives are meant to be complete descriptions of all the features of a social state relevant to choice, including future allocations of resources. It would then seem to follow that there is only one choice situation for which a social choice is required, the situation characterized by the actual feasible set and the actual preference profile. However, Arrow’s famous impossibility theorem (see Arrow 1951, 1963) requires the domain of a social choice correspondence to be reasonably rich. Indeed, many of Arrow’s axioms are vacuous if there is only one feasible set and one preference profile. Arrow (1951, p.24) appeals to uncertainty about what the actual choice environment is at the time social decisions are being made to justify having a non-singleton domain. Kolm (1996), however, believes that it is difficult to reconcile this rationale for the choice of domain with the adoption of the axioms Arrow proposes for relating choices in different choice environments.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ackerman, B. (1994). Political liberalisms. Journal of Philosophy, 91, 364–386
Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley
Arrow, K. J. (1959). Rational choice functions and orderings. Economica, 26, 121–127
Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley
Arrow, K. J. (1997). The functions of social choice theory. In K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, & K. Suzumura (Eds.), Social choice re-examined (Vol. 1, pp. 3–9). London: Macmillan
Barry, B. (1973). The liberal theory of justice. Oxford: Clarendon
Barry, B. (1989). A treatise on social justice. Volume 1: Theories of justice. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press
Bergson, A. (1938). A reformulation of certain aspects of welfare economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 52, 310–334
Bergson, A. (1954). On the concept of social welfare. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 63, 233–252
Donaldson, D., & Weymark, J. A. (1988). Social choice in economic environments. Journal of Economic Theory, 46, 291–308
Fleurbaey, M., & Maniquet, F. (2008). Utilitarianism versus fairness in welfare economics. In M. Fleurbaey, M. Salles, & J. A. Weymark (Eds.), Justice, political liberalism, and utilitarianism: Themes from harsanyi and rawls (pp. 263–280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Fleurbaey, M., & Mongin, P. (2005). The news of the death of welfare economics is greatly exaggerated. Social Choice and Welfare, 25, 381–418
Gorr, M. (1985). Reason, impartiality and utilitarianism. In N. T. Potter & M. Timmons (Eds.), Morality and universality (pp. 115–138). Dordrecht: D. Reidel
Hare, R. M. (1952). The language of morals. Oxford: Clarendon
Hare, R. M. (1963). Freedom and reason. Oxford: Clarendon
Hare, R. M. (1972). Rules of war and moral reasoning. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1, 166–181
Hare, R. M. (1973). Rawls’ theory of justice–I and II. Philosophical Quarterly, 23, 144–155 and 241–251
Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral thinking. Oxford: Clarendon
Harsanyi, J. C. (1953). Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk-taking. Journal of Political Economy, 61, 434–435
Harsanyi, J. C. (1955). Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 63, 309–321
Harsanyi, J. C. (1977). Rational behavior and bargaining equilibrium in games and social situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Kemp, M. C., & Ng, Y.-K. (1976). On the existence of social welfare functions, social orderings and social decision functions. Economica, 43, 59–66
Kolm, S.-C. (1969). The optimal production of social justice. In J. Margolis & H. Guitton (Eds.), Public economics: An analysis of public production and consumption and their relations to the private sector (pp. 145–200). London: Macmillan
Kolm, S.-C. (1993). What sense social choice? Unpublished manuscript, Conseil Général des Ponts et Chausées, Paris
Kolm, S.-C. (1994). Rational normative economics vs ‘social welfare’ and ‘social choice’. European Economic Review, 38, 721–730
Kolm, S.-C. (1995). Meanings and rationality in social choice theory. In D. Andler, P. Banerjee, M. Chaudhury, & O. Guillaume (Eds.), Facets of Rationality (pp. 79–103). New Dehli: Sage
Kolm, S.-C. (1996). Rational just social choice. In K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, & K. Suzumura (Eds.), Social choice re-examined (Vol. 2, pp. 167–196). London: Macmillan
Kolm, S.-C. (1997). Modern theories of justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Kymlicka, W. (1991). The social contract tradition. In P. Singer (Ed.), A companion to ethics (pp. 186–196). Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Le Breton, M., & Weymark, J. A. (2010). Arrovian social choice theory on economic domains. In K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, & K. Suzumura (Eds.), Handbook of social choice and welfare (Vol. 2, pp. 191–299). Amsterdam: North-Holland
Lewis, D. K. (1973). Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Little, I. M. D. (1952). Social choice and individual values. Journal of Political Economy, 60, 422–432
Mirrlees, J. A. (1971). An exploration in the theory of optimum income taxation. Review of Economic Studies, 38, 175–208
Mongin, P., & d’Aspremont, C. (1998). Utility theory and ethics. In S. Barberà, P. J. Hammond, & C. Seidl (Eds.), Handbook of utility theory. Volume 1: Principles (pp. 371–481). Boston: Kluwer
Nagel, T. (1973). Rawls on justice. Philosophical Review, 82, 220–234
Parks, R. P. (1976). An impossibility theorem for fixed preferences: A dictatorial Bergson-Samuelson welfare function. Review of Economic Studies, 43, 447–450
Pattanaik, P. K. (2005). Little and Bergson on Arrow’s concept of social welfare. Social Choice and Welfare, 25, 369–379
Pollak, R. A. (1979). Bergson–Samuelson social welfare functions and the theory of social choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93, 73–90
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press
Samuelson, P. A. (1947). Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Samuelson, P. A. (1967). Arrow’s mathematical politics. In S. Hook (Ed.), Human values and economic policy (pp. 41–51). New York: New York University Press
Samuelson, P. A. (1977). Reaffirming the existence of “reasonable” Bergson-Samuelson social welfare functions. Economica, 44, 81–88
Stiglitz, J. E. (1982). Self-selection and Pareto efficient taxation. Journal of Public Economics, 17, 13–240
Vickrey, W. (1945). Measuring marginal utility by reactions to risk. Econometrica, 13, 319–333
Vickrey, W. (1960). Utility, strategy, and social decision rules. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 74, 507–535
Vickrey, W. (1961). Risk, utility, and social policy. Social Research, 28, 205–217
Weymark, J. A. (1991). A reconsideration of the Harsanyi-Sen debate on utilitarianism. In J. Elster & J. E. Roemer (Eds.), Interpersonal comparisons of well-being (pp. 255–320). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Weymark, J. A. (1996). Discussion of Kolm’s paper. In K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, & K. Suzumura (Eds.), Social choice re-examined (Vol. 2, pp. 197–201). London: Macmillan
Weymark, J. A. (2005). Measurement theory and the foundations of utilitarianism. Social Choice and Welfare, 25, 527–555
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weymark, J.A. (2011). On Kolm’s Use of Epistemic Counterfactuals in Social Choice Theory. In: Fleurbaey, M., Salles, M., Weymark, J. (eds) Social Ethics and Normative Economics. Studies in Choice and Welfare. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17807-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17807-8_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-17806-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-17807-8
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)