Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Arrow's theorem assumes as background that any non-degenerate social choice rule will satisfy: [15]. Unrestricted domain — the social choice function is a total function over the domain of all possible orderings of outcomes, not just a partial function.
The work culminated in what Arrow called the "General Possibility Theorem," better known thereafter as Arrow's (impossibility) theorem. The theorem states that, absent restrictions on either individual preferences or neutrality of the constitution to feasible alternatives, there exists no social choice rule that satisfies a set of plausible ...
Unrestricted domain is one of the conditions for Arrow's impossibility theorem. Under that theorem, it is impossible to have a social choice function that satisfies unrestricted domain, Pareto efficiency, independence of irrelevant alternatives, and non-dictatorship. However, the conditions of the theorem can be satisfied if unrestricted domain ...
Arrow's impossibility theorem is a key result on social welfare functions, showing an important difference between social and consumer choice: whereas it is possible to construct a rational (non-self-contradictory) decision procedure for consumers based only on ordinal preferences, it is impossible to do the same in the social choice setting ...
Arrow's impossibility theorem shows that no reasonable (non-random, non-dictatorial) ranked voting system can satisfy IIA. However, Arrow's theorem does not apply to rated voting methods. These can pass IIA under certain assumptions, but fail it if they are not met. Methods that unconditionally pass IIA include sortition and random dictatorship.
Kenneth Joseph Arrow (August 23, 1921 – February 21, 2017) was an American economist, mathematician and political theorist.He received the John Bates Clark Medal in 1957, and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1972, along with John Hicks.
Arrow's impossibility theorem states that for three and more candidates, the only unanimous voting rule for which there is always a Condorcet winner is a dictatorship. The usual proof of Arrow's theorem is combinatorial. Kalai [13] gave an alternative proof of this result in the case of three candidates using Fourier analysis.
The consensus in favor of such approaches, pushed by behavioralists of the 1930s and 40s, has largely collapsed since the discovery of Arrow's impossibility theorem and utility representation theorems have shown them to be mathematically self-contradictory, violating the principle of transitive preferences.