Welfarism, IIA and arrovian constitutional rules

B. Kennelly

doi:10.1007/BF00433659

Welfarism, IIA and arrovian constitutional rules

B. Kennelly

University of Maryland, College Park

Research output: Contribution to a Journal (Peer & Non Peer) › Article › peer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Two contradictory views on the relationship between independence of irrelevant alternatives and welfarism have appeared in the social choice literature. I show that the contradictory views result from the use of two different forms of independence of irrelevant alternatives. It is shown that one form implies welfarism while the other does not.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	307-311
Number of pages	5
Journal	Social Choice and Welfare
Volume	5
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00433659
Publication status	Published - Nov 1988
Externally published	Yes

Access to Document

10.1007/BF00433659

Cite this

@article{6b64bb8015a04dbf8eb10ef159cf88b5,

title = "Welfarism, IIA and arrovian constitutional rules",

abstract = "Two contradictory views on the relationship between independence of irrelevant alternatives and welfarism have appeared in the social choice literature. I show that the contradictory views result from the use of two different forms of independence of irrelevant alternatives. It is shown that one form implies welfarism while the other does not.",

author = "B. Kennelly",

year = "1988",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1007/BF00433659",

language = "English",

volume = "5",

pages = "307--311",

journal = "Social Choice and Welfare",

issn = "0176-1714",

publisher = "Springer New York",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Welfarism, IIA and arrovian constitutional rules

AU - Kennelly, B.

PY - 1988/11

Y1 - 1988/11

N2 - Two contradictory views on the relationship between independence of irrelevant alternatives and welfarism have appeared in the social choice literature. I show that the contradictory views result from the use of two different forms of independence of irrelevant alternatives. It is shown that one form implies welfarism while the other does not.

AB - Two contradictory views on the relationship between independence of irrelevant alternatives and welfarism have appeared in the social choice literature. I show that the contradictory views result from the use of two different forms of independence of irrelevant alternatives. It is shown that one form implies welfarism while the other does not.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/34250087455

U2 - 10.1007/BF00433659

DO - 10.1007/BF00433659

M3 - Article

SN - 0176-1714

VL - 5

SP - 307

EP - 311

JO - Social Choice and Welfare

JF - Social Choice and Welfare

IS - 4

ER -

Welfarism, IIA and arrovian constitutional rules

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this