Abstract
Example 2 in Qin (Soc Choice Welf 45:1–17, 2015) provides a counter-example to Ryan (Soc Choice Welf 42:193–213, 2014, Proposition 5). The erroneous step in the “proof” of Proposition 5 is the assumption that a choice function over opportunity sets is rationalizable whenever its base relation is justifiable (Lahiri, Soc Choice Welf 21:117–129, 2003). Qin’s example shows this assumption to be false. In this Corrigendum we provide a corrected version of Ryan’s (Soc Choice Welf 42:193–213, 2014, Proposition 5), based on results in Ryan (Soc Choice Welf 42:193–213, 2014) and Qin (Soc Choice Welf 45:1–17, 2015).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The second-to-last paragraph of the Introduction should also be amended accordingly. For example, by replacing the last two sentences with: “For a Plott consistent choice function, this associated base relation is justifiable if and only if it satisfies Lahiri’s Weak Expansion property.”
References
Lahiri S (2003) Justifiable preferences over opportunity sets. Soc Choice Welf 21:117–129
Qin D (2015) On justifiable choice functions over opportunity sets. Soc Choice Welf 45:1–17
Ryan M (2014) Path independent choice and the ranking of opportunity sets. Soc Choice Welf 42:193–213
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The authors would like to thank the Editor and an anonymous referee for thoughtful guidance on the preparation of this corrigendum.
Ryan, of course, takes sole responsibility for the original error.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Qin, D., Ryan, M. Rationalizability of Plott consistent choice functions: a corrigendum. Soc Choice Welf 47, 761–762 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-016-0964-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-016-0964-1