Social Aggregation Rules and Continuity

Suppose a "democratic" society must decide between several options, but the members of society do not unanimously agree on the desirability of the different options. Each member has his or her own ranking, and the goal is to transform this set of preference orders into a single preference order for society as a whole. The top-ranked outcomes according to that social order is what one calls a social choice rule. Ideally a social choice rule should have various desirable features, such as being nondictatorial (the social choice rule does not simply select one person's ranking and ignore the others) and monotonic (if one individual promotes an option on his or her ranking, the societal ranking of this option should not go down). In 1972 Kenneth Arrow won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on social choice theory, in particular his "impossibility theorem." This theorem states that if society consists of at least two people and there are at least three options to rank, then it is impossible to design a social choice rule that simultaneously satisfies a particular set of desirable features including those mentioned above. In spite of this, choices must be made and a variety of social choice rules have been designed for combining individual preferences into a collective agreement, each having certain limitations. But even once we decide on a particular rule, implementing it in the real world can be a challenge. Consider a multipass voting system---for example, the American system of primary elections followed by the general election between winners of the primary. Just this spring the state of Washington overhauled its primary system to require voters to choose one party's ballot before they can vote, rather than putting candidates of all political parties on the same ballot and letting voters pick and choose among them for each office. The fear with the old system was that voters would misrepresent their own desires in the primary election, in hopes of getting a more easily defeated opposition candidate on the general electionballot. On the other hand, independent-minded voters (of which there are many in Washington state) criticize the new system for not allowing them to express their true preferences for each office. Even when members of society do not intentionally misrepresent their own preferences, decision makers in the real world must always work with incomplete information about the state of the world and people's priorities. The goal of implementation theory is to study the extent to which it is possible to implement a desired social choice rule under various assumptions on the preferences and behavior of members of society. In the following paper, Roberto Serrano, of the Economics Department at Brown University, presents a survey of implementation theory and mathematical results obtained using game theory. The theory is illustrated with a number of interesting examples covering everything from voting and public decision making to King Solomon's dilemma. For more on the subject of voting, please note that this issue contains a related paper in the Problems and Techniques section, "Single Transferable Votes with Tax Cuts," by Eivind Stensholt.

Chapter 1 Impossibility theorems in the arrovian framework

In this paper, we study the metric distortion of deterministic social choice rules that choose a winning candidate from a set of candidates based on voter preferences. Voters and candidates are located in an underlying metric space. A voter has cost equal to her distance to the winning candidate. Ordinal social choice rules only have access to the ordinal preferences of the voters that are assumed to be consistent with the metric distances. Our goal is to design an ordinal social choice rule with minimum distortion, which is the worst-case ratio, over all consistent metrics, between the social cost of the rule and that of the optimal omniscient rule with knowledge of the underlying metric space. The distortion of the best deterministic social choice rule was known to be between $3$ and $5$. It had been conjectured that any rule that only looks at the weighted tournament graph on the candidates cannot have distortion better than $5$. In our paper, we disprove it by presenting a weighted tournament rule with distortion of $4.236$. We design this rule by generalizing the classic notion of uncovered sets, and further show that this class of rules cannot have distortion better than $4.236$. We then propose a new voting rule, via an alternative generalization of uncovered sets. We show that if a candidate satisfying the criterion of this voting rule exists, then choosing such a candidate yields a distortion bound of $3$, matching the lower bound. We present a combinatorial conjecture that implies distortion of $3$, and verify it for small numbers of candidates and voters by computer experiments. Using our framework, we also show that selecting any candidate guarantees distortion of at most $3$ when the weighted tournament graph is cyclically symmetric.

This study has proposed a methodology by enhancing an interactive algorithm to multi-objective optimization problems with interval parameters, in an attempt to reach the tradeoff between quality and reliability of the resultant optimum solutions. The earlier algorithm could turn into a prolonged procedure that deals with several players with different aspirations at different reliability, or risk, levels under non-deterministic conditions. Hence, it is not a pertinent approach to solve problems of water allocation between competing parties. The enhanced methodology aims to alleviate the burdens of the procedure and generate a unique set of solutions (i.e., near-Pareto-optimal alternatives), instead of a myriad of compromise solution sets. We have investigated a real-world hydro-environmental problem, the allocation of water between Dorudzan-Korbal irrigation networks and Bakhtegan Lake in Fars Province, Iran to assess feasibility of this methodology. In order to reach a consensus concerning the stakeholders’ individual preferences, we identified the compromise alternatives from the obtained sets of non-dominated solutions by taking advantage of various social choice rules and the Nash bargaining model. The results demonstrated that the developed methodology could incorporate the risk of system constraints violations (i.e., planning reliability under uncertainty) into the process of approximating the optimal tradeoff set of solutions. It also gave policymakers a chance to acquire perception into the potentially best compromise for land and water allocation schemes regarding the preference profiles of the involved interest groups.

Abelian symmetry groups in social choice

If is a set of social alternatives, a social choice rule (SCR) assigns a subset of A to each potential profile of individuals' preferences over A, where the subset is interpreted as the set of 'welfare optima.' A game form (or 'mechanism') implements the social choice rule if, for any potential profile of preferences, (1) any welfare optimum can arise as a Nash equilibrium of the game form (implying, in particular, that a Nash equilibrium exists) and, (2) all Nash equilibria are welfare optimal. The main result of this paper establishes that any SCR that satisfies two properties - monotonicity and no veto power--can be implemented by a game form if there are three or more individuals. The proof is constructive.

In this paper, we provide axiomatic foundations for social choice rules on a domain of convex and comprehensive social choice problems when agents have cardinal utility functions. We translate the axioms of three well known approaches in bargaining theory (Nash 1950; Kalai and Smorodinsky 1975; Kalai 1977) to the domain of social choice problems and provide an impossibility result for each. We then introduce the concept of a reference function which, for each social choice set, selects a point from which relative gains are measured. By restricting the invariance and comparison axioms so that they only apply to sets with the same reference point, we obtain characterizations of social choice rules that are natural analogues of the bargaining theory solutions.

The aim of the present paper is to analyze the problem of assuring the feasibility of a mechanism (game form), implementing in Nash equilibrium a given social choice rule abbreviated as (SCR) when the mechanism is constrained as to the way in which it is permitted to depend on endowments. A social choice rule is a correspondence specifying outcomes considered to be desirable in a given economy (environment). A mechanism is defined by (a) an outcome function and (b) a strategy domain prescribed for each player. Our outcome functions are not permitted to depend at all on the initial endowments. As to strategy domains, the ith agent’s strategy domain Si is only permitted to depend on that agent’s endowment, but not on the endowments, other agents. (For earlier results concerning endoment manipulation, see Postlewaite (1979) and Sertel (1990).)

A decision-making framework for river water quality management under uncertainty: Application of social choice rules

This paper establishes a clear connection between equilibrium theory, game theory and social choice theory by showing that, for a well defined social choice problem, a condition which is necessary and sufficient to solve this problem — limited arbitrage — is the same as the condition which is necessary and sufficient to establish the existence of an equilibrium and the core. The connection is strengthened by establishing that a market allocation, which is in the core, can always be realized as a social allocation, i.e. an allocation which is optimal according to an ordering chosen by a social choice rule. Limited arbitrage characterizes those economies without Condorcet triples, and those for which Arrow’s paradox can be resolved on choices of large utility values.KeywordsSocial ChoiceSocial PreferenceCompetitive EquilibriumPareto FrontierSocial Choice RuleThese 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.

This paper concerns an interdisciplinary approach to coalition formation. We apply the MacBeth software, relational algebra, the RelView tool, graph theory, bargaining theory, social choice theory, and consensus reaching to a model of coalition formation. A feasible government is a pair consisting of a coalition of parties and a policy supported by this coalition. A feasible government is stable if it is not dominated by any other feasible government. Each party evaluates each government with respect to certain criteria. MacBeth helps to quantify the importance of the criteria and the attractiveness and repulsiveness of governments to parties with respect to the given criteria. Feasibility, dominance, and stability are formulated in relation-algebraic terms. The RelView tool is used to compute the dominance relation and the set of all stable governments. In case there is no stable government, i.e., in case the dominance relation is cyclic, we apply graph-theoretical techniques for breaking the cycles. If the solution is not unique, we select the final government by applying bargaining or appropriate social choice rules. We describe how a coalition may form a government by reaching consensus about a policy.Keywordsstable governmentMacBethrelational algebra RelView graph theorybargainingsocial choice ruleconsensus

Impossibility theorems are ubiquitous in social choice theory. By now, the reader has encountered several of these, among them the famous impossibility results by Arrow, Sen, and Gibbard and Satterthwaite. We think that it is high time to study various possibility results. Of course, this has a price: at least one of Arrow ‘s conditions must be weakened and the reader has to ask himself or herself whether in each individual case, the ensuing possibility is worth its price.

Chapter 5* - ANONYMITY, NEUTRALITY AND RESPONSIVENESS

An exact non-cooperative support for the sequential Raiffa solution

Mixed Bayesian implementation in general environments