Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem stretching to other fields

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Arrow’s impossibility result not only had a profound influence on welfare economics, but was, as this paper shows, also widely discussed in philosophy of science and in the engineering design literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arrow, K. J. ([1951] 1963). Social choice and individual values, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.

  • Dym, C. L., Wood, W. H., & Scott, M. J. (2002). Rank ordering engineering designs: Pairwise comparison charts and Borda counts. Research in Engineering Design, 13, 236–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franssen, M. (2005). Arrow’s theorem, multi-criteria decision problems and multi-attribute preferences in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, 16, 42–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franssen, M., & Bucciarelli, L. L. (2004). On rationality in engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 126, 945–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, W. (2001). Domain conditions in social choice theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, W. (2009). A primer in social choice theory (rev ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, W. (2016). Aggregating qualitative verdicts: From social choice to engineering design. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 5, 319–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, W., & Wüthrich, N. (2016). Evaluating competing theories via a common language of qualitative verdicts. Synthese, 193, 3293–3309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Th S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Th. S. (1974, 1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In Th. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension—selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 320–339). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Morreau, M. (2014). Mr. Fit, Mr. Simplicity and Mr. Scope: From social choice to theory choice. Erkenntnis, 79, 1253–1286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morreau, M. (2015). Theory choice and social choice: Kuhn vindicated. Mind, 124(493), 239–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okasha, S. (2011). Theory choice and social choice: Kuhn vs. Arrow. Mind, 129(477), 83–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizza, D. (2014). Arrow’s theorem and theory choice. Synthese, 191, 1847–1856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saari, D. G. (1995). Geometry of voting. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1967). Arrow’s mathematical politics. In S. Hook (Ed.), Human values and economic policy (pp. 41–52). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, Th M. (1998). What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, M. J., & Antonsson, E. K. (1999). Arrow’s theorem and engineering design decision making. Research in Engineering Design, 11, 218–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1970). Collective choice and social welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1977). On weights and measures: Informational constraints in social welfare analysis. Econometrica, 45, 1539–1572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegenga, J. (2015). Theory choice and social choice: Okasha versus Sen. Mind, 124(493), 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strasnick, St. (1976). Social choice and the derivation of Rawls’s difference principle. The Journal of Philosophy, 73, 85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P. (1966). Some formal models of grading principles. Synthese, 16, 284–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, L.-G. (1977). Social justice and fair distributions. Lund: Lund University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temkin, L. S. (1993). Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (2011). Experimentation versus theory choice: A social-epistemological approach. In H. B. Schmidt, D. Sirtes, & M. Weber (Eds.), Collective epistemology (pp. 1–26). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to an anonymous referee and the editor of this journal for several perceptive comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of Osnabrueck, 49069, Osnabrueck, Germany

    Wulf Gaertner

  2. CPNSS, London School of Economics, London, WC2A 2AE, UK

    Wulf Gaertner

Authors
  1. Wulf Gaertner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wulf Gaertner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gaertner, W. Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem stretching to other fields. Public Choice 179, 125–131 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-018-0503-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-018-0503-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation