Perhaps the most influential result in social choice theory is Arrow's impossibility theorem, which states that a seemingly modest set of desiderata cannot be satisfied when aggregating preferences [1]. While Arrow's theorem might appear rather negative, it can also be interpreted in a positive way by identifying what can be achieved in preference aggregation.
In this talk, I present a number of variations of Arrow's theorem-such as those due to Mas-Colell and Sonnenschein [8] and Blau and Deb [2]-in their choice-theoretic version. The critical condition in all these theorems is the assumption of a rationalizing binary relation or equivalent notions of choice-consistency. The bulk of my presentation contains three escape routes from these results. The first one is to ignore consistency with respect to a variable set of alternatives altogether and require consistency with respect to a variable electorate instead. As Smith [12] and Young [14] have famously shown, this essentially characterizes the class of scoring rules, which contains plurality and Borda's rule. For the second escape route, we factorize choice-consistency into two parts, contraction-consistency and expansions-consistency [11]. While even the mildest dose of the former has severe consequences on the possibility of choice, varying degrees of the latter characterize a number of appealing social choice functions, namely the top cycle, the uncovered set, and the Banks set [3,9,4]. Finally, I suggest to redefine choice-consistency by making reference to the set of chosen alternatives rather than individual chosen alternatives [6]. It turns out that the resulting condition is a weakening of transitive rationalizability and can be used to characterize the minimal covering set and the bipartisan set. Based on a two decades-old conjecture due to Schwartz [10], the tournament equilibrium set can be characterized by the same condition or, alternatively, by a weak expansion-consistency condition from the second escape route. Whether Schwartz's conjecture actually holds remains a challenging combinatorial problem as well as one of the enigmatic open problems of social choice theory.
Throughout the presentation I will discuss the algorithmic aspects of all considered social choice functions. While some of the mentioned functions can be easily computed, other ones do not admit an efficient algorithm unless P equals NP [13,5,7].
[1]
Felix Brandt,et al.
Minimal stable sets in tournaments
,
2008,
J. Econ. Theory.
[2]
Felix A. Fischer,et al.
Computing the minimal covering set
,
2008,
Math. Soc. Sci..
[3]
J. H. Smith.
AGGREGATION OF PREFERENCES WITH VARIABLE ELECTORATE
,
1973
.
[4]
Felix A. Fischer,et al.
A computational analysis of the tournament equilibrium set
,
2008,
Soc. Choice Welf..
[5]
H. Young.
Social Choice Scoring Functions
,
1975
.
[6]
Felix Brandt,et al.
Set-rationalizable choice and self-stability
,
2009,
J. Econ. Theory.
[7]
Georges Bordes,et al.
Consistency, Rationality and Collective Choice
,
1976
.
[8]
Andreu Mas-Colell,et al.
General Possibility Theorems for Group Decisions
,
1972
.
[9]
Rajat Deb,et al.
Social Decision Functions and the Veto
,
1977
.
[10]
Thomas Schwartz.
Cyclic tournaments and cooperative majority voting: A solution
,
1990
.
[11]
H. Moulin.
Choosing from a tournament
,
1986
.
[12]
A. Sen,et al.
Choice Functions and Revealed Preference
,
1971
.
[13]
Gerhard J. Woeginger,et al.
Banks winners in tournaments are difficult to recognize
,
2003,
Soc. Choice Welf..
[14]
David Austen-Smith and Jeffrey S. Banks,et al.
Positive Political Theory II
,
2005
.
[15]
K. Arrow.
Social Choice and Individual Values
,
1951
.