Abstract
Fried (in Public Choise, this issue, 2013) claims that Quesada (in Public Choise 130:395–400, 2007) is wrong in showing that the dictator in a dictatorial social welfare function does not necessarily enjoy absolute decision power. This reply revisits, and illustrates by means of an example, the framework where Quesada’s result is obtained. It is argued that Fried’s counterfactual analysis conducted to invalidate Quesada’s conclusion relies on untenable presumptions: (i) that the rules to identify the values of a social welfare function say something about how these values must have been obtained; and (ii) that counterfactual analysis can be conducted in an environment where causes and effects cannot be unequivocally established.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Fried, G. (2013). Taking dictatorship seriously: a reply to Quesada. Public Choice. doi:10.1007/s11127-013-0092-8
Quesada, A. (2007). 1 dictator = 2 voters. Public Choice, 130, 395–400.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Greg Fried, for his interest in Quesada (2007), and to Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, Associate Editor of Public Choice, for the invitation to write this rejoinder, which has also been helpful to try to clarify the framework in Quesada (2007). Many thanks as well to the Editor in Chief, William F. Shughart II, for amending embarrassing mistakes.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This reply refers to the comment available at doi:10.1007/s11127-013-0092-8.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Quesada, A. Taking alleged dictatorship more seriously: Rejoinder to Fried. Public Choice 158, 253–259 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-013-0114-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-013-0114-6