Skip to main content
Log in

Topological social choice: Reply to Le Breton and Uriarte

  • Published:
Social Choice and Welfare Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Baigent N (1984) A reformulation of Chichilnisky's impossibility theorem. Econ Letters 16:23–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Baigent N (1985) Anonymity and continuous social choice. J Math Econ 13:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Baigent N (1985) Preference proximity and anonymous social choice. Q J Econ 102:161–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Chichilnisky G (1979) On fixed point theorems and social choice paradoxes. Econ Letters 3:347–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Chichilnisky G (1980) Social choice and the topology of preferences. Adv Math 27:165–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Chichilnisky G (1982) Social aggregation rules and continuity. Q J Econ 97:337–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildenbrand W (1974) Core and equilibria of a large economy. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny JG, Snell JL (1962) Mathematical models in the social sciences. Blaisdell, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Breton M, Uriarte JR (1990) On the robustness of the impossibility result in the topological approach to social choice. Soc Choice Welfare 7:131–140 (this issue)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mas-Colell A (1985) The theory of general economic equilibrium. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen AK (1977) Social choice theory: a re-examination. Econometrica 45:53–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Trockel W (1984) Market demand. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

One of us has given seminars on related issues at Cornell, LSE, University of Pennsylvania and the University of British Columbia. We are grateful to all participants. For helpful conversations we are grateful to David Cass, Birgit Grodal, Andrew McClennen, Murat Sertel and Ho-Mou Wu. The views expressed are our own.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baigent, N., Huang, P. Topological social choice: Reply to Le Breton and Uriarte. Soc Choice Welfare 7, 141–146 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01560580

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01560580

Keywords

Navigation