Advances in Equilibrium Theory pp 1-24 | Cite as

# Price Dynamics, Social Choice, Voting Methods, Probability and Chaos

- 3 Citations
- 49 Downloads

## Abstract

An intriguing aspect of the mathematical social sciences is the discovery that so many things can go wrong! Mathematical models are developed to clarify, sharpen, and advance arguments originally put forth in a verbal form. Often these verbal arguments persuasively leave us with a sense of security and of orderliness; then often the mathematical formulation shatters this stability. (This is because the mathematics may uncover subtle combinatorics or hidden second and higher level interaction effects.) Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of this comes from the social choice literature with the well-known Arrow Impossibility Theorem [1]). In economics, the stability of the price adjustment model of tatonnement was threatened by Scarf’s example [2] where he showed that the tatonnement market forces of supply and demand could push the prices *away* from any equilibrium. Any remaining faith in this price story was destroyed by the work of Sonnenschein and others [3] which disclosed, as a corollary, that almost any type of price trajectory could occur.

## Keywords

Social Choice Condorcet Winner Approval Vote Vote Method Ordinal Ranking## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.Arrow, K.,
*Social Choice and Individual Values*, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Monograph 12, Yale University, New Haven, 1953.Google Scholar - 2.Scarf, H., Some examples of global instabilities of the competitive equilibrium, International Econ. Review, 1 (1960), 157–172.Google Scholar
- 3.Shafer, W. and H. Sonnenschein, Market demand and excess demand function, Chp. 14 in
*Handbook of Mathematical Economics, 2*, edited by K. Arrow and M. D. Intriligator, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982.Google Scholar - 4.Benhabib, J. and K. Nishimura, Competitive equilibrium cycles, NYU preprint, 1983.Google Scholar
- 5.Grandmont, J. M., On endogeneous competitive business cycles, CEPREMAP Discussion paper no. 8316, Sept. 1983.Google Scholar
- 6.Bewley, T., A talk given at a conference on price dynamics at the University of Minnesota, Oct. 1983.Google Scholar
- 7..Saari, D. G., Dynamical systems and mathematical economics, to appear in a book ed. by H. Sonnenschein and H. Weinberger, Springer Verlag series.Google Scholar
- 8.Saari, D. G., and J. Urenko, Newton’s method, circle maps, and chaotic motion, Amer. Math. Monthly, 91 (1984), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Barna, B., Uber die divergenzpunkte des Newtonschen Verfahrens zur Bestimmung von Wurzein algebraischer Gleichungen 3, Publicationes Mathematicae, Debrecen, 8 (1961), 193–207.Google Scholar
- 10.Martin, C. and R. Hurley, Newton’s algorithm and chaotic dynamical systems, SIAM Jour of Math Anal. 1984.Google Scholar
- 11..Urenko, J., The improbability of chaos in Newtons method, To appear in Jour of Math Anal and Appl.Google Scholar
- 12.Saari, D. G., Iterative price dynamics, to appear in Econometrica. (NU preprint, October 1983.)Google Scholar
- 13.Fishburn, P.,
*The Theory of Social Choice*, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1973.Google Scholar - 14.Fishburn, P., Inverted orders for monotone scoring rules, Discrete Applied Mathematics, 3 (1981), 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Saari, D. G., Inconsistencies of weighted voting systems, Math of OR, 7 (1982), 479–490.Google Scholar
- 16.Saari, D. G., The ultimate of chaos resulting from weighted voting systems, Advances in Applied Mathematics 5(1984), 286–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Saari, D. G., The source of some paradoxes from social choice and probability, NU Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics, Discussion paper no. 609, June, 1984.Google Scholar
- 18.Brams, and Fishburn,
*Approval Voting*, Birkhauser, Boston, 1982.Google Scholar - 19.Steinhaus, H. and S. Tribula, On a paradox in applied probability, Bull Acad Polo Sci, 7 (1959), 67–69.Google Scholar
- 20.Blyth, C., On Simpson’s paradox and the sure-thing principle, Jour of Amer Statistical Assoc, 67 (1972), 364–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Wagner, C., Simpson’s paradox in real life, The American Statistician, 36 (1982), 46–48.Google Scholar
- 22.Bickel, P. J., Hammel, E. A., and J. W. O’Connell, Sex bias in graduate admissions: data from Berkely, Science, 187, 398–404.Google Scholar