Abstract
We consider the problem of ranking linear budget sets. After discussing a difference between two approaches suggested by Xu (Soc Choice Welf 22:281–289, 2004) and Kolm (Soc Choice Welf 2009), we introduce three axioms which are motivated by Kolm’s approach. Using the three axioms, we characterize a ranking rule named the pointed distance rule proposed by Kolm (Soc Choice Welf 2009).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Barberà S, Bossert W, Pattanaik PK (2002) Ranking sets of objects. In: Barberà S, Hammond P, Seidl C (eds) The handbook of utility theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers
Jones P, Sugden R (1982) Evaluating choice. Int Rev Law Econ 2: 47–69
Kolm S (2004) Macrojustice, the political economy of fairness. Cambridge University Press, New York
Kolm S-C (2009) On real economic freedom. Soc Choice Welf. doi:10.1007/s00355-009-0436-y
Pattanaik PK, Xu Y (1990) On ranking opportunity sets in terms of freedom of choice. Rech Econ Louvain 56: 383–390
Pattanaik PK, Xu Y (2000) On ranking opportunity sets in economic environments. J Econ Theory 93(1): 48–71
Sen AK (1999) Development as freedom. Alfred A. Knopf Publishers, New York
Xu Y (2003) On ranking compact and comprehensive opportunity sets. Math Soc Sci 45(2): 109–119
Xu Y (2004) On ranking linear budget sets in terms of freedom of choice. Soc Choice Welf 22(1): 281–289
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miyagishima, K. Ranking linear budget sets. Soc Choice Welf 35, 163–173 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-009-0435-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-009-0435-z