Advertisement

Utilitarianism without individual utilities

  • Thierry MarchantEmail author
Original Paper
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

We characterize anonymous utilitarianism in a multi-profile and purely ordinal framework, i.e. without assuming that utilities have been measured beforehand.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Antoinette Baujard, Denis Bouyssou, Marc Pirlot, John Weymark and two anonymous reviewers for comments and discussions.

References

  1. Arrow KJ (1963) Social choice and individual values, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackorby C, Donaldson D (1982) Ratio-scale and translation-scale full interpersonal comparability without domain restrictions: admissible social-evaluation functions. Int Econ Rev 23(2):249–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Börgers T, Choo YM (2017) A counterexample to Dhillon (1998). Soc Choice Welf 48(4):837–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Börgers T, Choo YM (2017) Revealed relative utilitarianism (Unpublished)Google Scholar
  5. Bossert W (1991) On intra- and interpersonal utility comparisons. Soc Choice Welf 8:207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers CP, Echenique F (2012) When does aggregation reduce risk aversion? Games Econ Behav 76:582–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. d’Aspremont C, Gevers L (1977) Equity and the informational basis of collective choice. Rev Econ Stud 44:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Debreu G (1960) Topological methods in cardinal utility theory. In: Arrow KJ, Karlin S, Suppes P (eds) Mathematical methods in the social sciences. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 16–26Google Scholar
  9. Dhillon A (1998) Extended pareto rules and relative utilitarianism. Soc Choice Welf 15(4):521–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dhillon A, Mertens JF (1999) Relative utilitarianism. Econometrica 67(3):471–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donaldson D, Weymark JA (1988) Social choice in economic environments. J Econ Theory 46:291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleurbaey M, Zuber S (2017) Fair management of social risk. J Econ Theory 169:666–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harsanyi JC (1955) Cardinal welfare, individual ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. J Polit Econ 63(4):309–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jensen NE (1967) An introduction to Bernouillian utility theory I: utility functions. Swed J Econ 69:163–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krantz DH, Luce RD, Suppes P, Tversky A (1971) Foundations of measurement: additive and polynomial representations. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Marchant T (2008) Scale invariance and similar invariance conditions for bankruptcy problems. Soc Choice Welf 31:693–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morreau M, Weymark JA (2016) Measurement scales and welfarist social choice. J Math Psychol 75:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Myerson RB (1995) Axiomatic derivation of scoring rules without the ordering assumption. Soc Choice Welf 12:59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pivato M (2014) Formal utilitarianism and range voting. Math Soc Sci 67:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roberts KWS (1980) Interpersonal comparability and social choice theory. Rev Econ Stud 47:421–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roemer JE (1996) Theories of distributive justice. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  22. Sen AK (1970) Collective choice and social welfare. Holden-Day, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  23. Sen AK (1976) Welfare inequalities and Rawlsian axiomatics. Theory Decis 7:243–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith JH (1973) Aggregation of preferences with variable electorate. Econometrica 41:1027–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sprumont Y (2013) On relative egalitarianism. Soc Choice Welf 40(4):1015–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thomson W (2001) On the axiomatic method and its recent applications to game theory and resource allocation. Soc Choice Welf 18:327–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weymark JA (1991) A reconsideration of the Harsanyi–Sen debate on utilitarianism. In: Elster J, Roemer JE (eds) Interpersonal comparisons of well-being. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Young HP (1975) Social choice scoring functions. SIAM J Appl Math 28:824–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations