Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 869–889 | Cite as

Social choice without the Pareto principle: a comprehensive analysis

  • Susumu CatoEmail author
Original Paper


This article provides a systematic analysis of social choice theory without the Pareto principle, by revisiting the method of Murakami Yasusuke. This article consists of two parts. The first part investigates the relationship between rationality of social preference and the axioms that make a collective choice rule either Paretian or anti-Paretian. In the second part, the results in the first part are applied to obtain impossibility results under various rationality requirements of social preference, such as S-consistency, quasi-transitivity, semi-transitivity, the interval-order property, and acyclicity.


Social Choice Social Preference Econ Theory Social Choice Theory Impossibility Theorem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow KJ (1951) Social choice and individual values, 1st edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow KJ (1963) Social choice and individual values, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Banks JS (1995) Acyclic social choice from finite sets. Soc Choice Welf 12: 293–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binmore K (1976) Social choice and parties. Rev Econ Stud 43: 459–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair DH, Bordes G, Kelly JS, Suzumura K (1976) Impossibility theorems without collective rationality. J Econ Theory 13: 361–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blair DH, Pollak RA (1979) Collective rationality and dictatorship: the scope of the arrow theorem. J Econ Theory 21: 186–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blair DH, Pollak RA (1982) Acyclic collective choice rules. Econometrica 50: 931–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blau JH (1979) Semiorders and collective choice. J Econ Theory 21: 195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Border KC (1983) Social welfare functions for economic environments with and without the Pareto principle. J Econ Theory 29: 205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bossert W, Suzumura K (2008) A characterization of consistent collective choice rules. J Econ Theory 138: 311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bossert W, Suzumura K (2009) Decisive coallitions and coherence properties. Discussion Paper, Université de Montréal—CIREQGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown DJ (1975) Aggregation of preferences. Quart J Econ 89: 456–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell DE (1989) Wilson’s theorem for economic environments and continuous social preferences. Soc Choice Welf 6: 315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell DE (1990) Intergenerational social choice without the Pareto principle. J Econ Theory 50: 414–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell DE, Kelly JS (1993) t or 1−t. that is the trade-off. Econometrica 61: 1355–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Campbell DE, Kelly JS (1998) Quasitransitive social preference: why some very large coalitions have very little power. Econ Theory 12: 147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Campbell DE, Kelly JS (2002) Impossibility theorems in the Arrovian framework. In: Arrow KJ, Sen AK, Suzumura K (eds) Handbook of social choice and welfare vol 1. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 35–94Google Scholar
  18. Campbell DE, Kelly JS (2003) On the Arrow and Wilson impossibility theorems. Soc Choice Welf 20: 273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cato S (2011) Remarks on Suzumura consistent collective choice rules, Working Paper University of TokyoGoogle Scholar
  20. Cato S (2010) Brief proofs of Arrovian impossibility theorems. Soc Choice Welf 35: 267–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cato S, Hirata D (2010) Collective choice rules and collective rationality: a unified method of characterizations. Soc Choice Welf 34: 611–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fountain J, Suzumura K (1982) Collective choice rules without the Pareto principle. Int Econ Rev 23: 299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibbard A (1969) Social choice and the Arrow condition. Working paper Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
  24. Guha A (1972) Neutrality, monotonicity, and the right of veto. Econometrica 40: 821–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansson B (1976) The existence of group preference functions. Public Choice 28: 89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelsey D (1984) Acyclic choice without the Pareto principle. Rev Econ Stud 51: 693–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelsey D (1985) The liberal paradox: a generalisation. Soc Choice Welf 1: 245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kelsey D (1988) What is responsible for the “Paretian epidemic”?. Soc Choice Welf 5: 303–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirman AP, Sondermann D (1972) Arrow’s theorem, many agents, and invisible dictators. J Econ Theory 5: 267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mas-Colell A, Sonnenschein H (1972) General possibility theorems for group decisions. Rev Econ Stud 39: 185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malawski M, Zhou L (1994) A note on social choice theory without the Pareto principle. Soc Choice Welf 11: 103–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller MK (2009) Social choice theory without Pareto: the pivotal voter approach. Math Soc Sci 58: 251–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murakami Y (1968) Logic and social choice, Routledge LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Monjardet B (1983) On the use of ultrafilters in social choice theory. In: Pattanaik PK, Salles M (eds) Social Choice and Welfare, Amsterdam, pp 73–78Google Scholar
  35. Nagahisa R (1991) Acyclic and continuous social choice in T 1 connected spaces. Soc Choice Welf 8: 319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nakamura K (1979) The vetoers in a simple game with ordinal preferences. Int J Game Theory 8: 55–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Plott CR (1973) Path independence, rationality, and social choice. Econometrica 41: 1075–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sen AK (1970) Collective choice and social welfare. Holden-Day, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  39. Sen AK (1976) Liberty, unanimity and rights. Economica 43: 217–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sen AK (1979) Personal utilities and public judgements: or what’s wrong with welfare economics? Econ J 89: 537–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sen AK (1995) Rationality and social choice. Am Econ Rev 85: 1–24Google Scholar
  42. Suzumura K (1976) Remarks on the theory of collective choice. Economica 43: 381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ubeda L (2003) Neutrality in arrow and other impossibility theorems. Econ Theory 23: 195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson R (1972) Social choice theory without the Pareto principle. J Econ Theory 5: 478–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Xu Y (1990) The Libertarian paradox: some further observations. Soc Choice Welf 7: 343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Social ScienceUniversity of TokyoBunkyo-ku, TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations