Synthese

, Volume 140, Issue 1–2, pp 207–235 | Cite as

Aggregating Sets of Judgments: Two Impossibility Results Compared1

  • Christian List
  • Philip Pettit
Article

Abstract

The ``doctrinal paradox'' or ``discursive dilemma'' shows that propositionwise majority voting over the judgments held by multiple individuals on some interconnected propositions can lead to inconsistent collective judgments on these propositions. List and Pettit (2002) have proved that this paradox illustrates a more general impossibility theorem showing that there exists no aggregation procedure that generally produces consistent collective judgments and satisfies certain minimal conditions. Although the paradox and the theorem concern the aggregation of judgments rather than preferences, they invite comparison with two established results on the aggregation of preferences: the Condorcet paradox and Arrow's impossibility theorem. We may ask whether the new impossibility theorem is a special case of Arrow's theorem, or whether there are interesting disanalogies between the two results. In this paper, we compare the two theorems, and show that they are not straightforward corollaries of each other. We further suggest that, while the framework of preference aggregation can be mapped into the framework of judgment aggregation, there exists no obvious reverse mapping. Finally, we address one particular minimal condition that is used in both theorems – an independence condition – and suggest that this condition points towards a unifying property underlying both impossibility results.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Anscombe, G. E. M.: 1976, ‘On Frustration of the Majority by Fulfillment of the Majority's Will’, Analysis 36(4), 161-168.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K.: 1951/1963, Social Choice and Individual Values, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Bossert, W. and J. Weymark: 1996, ‘Utility in Social Choice’, in S. Barberà, P. J. Hammond, and C. Seidel (eds.), Handbook of Utility Theory, Vol. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
  4. Black, D.: 1948, ‘On the Rationale of Group Decision-Making’, Journal of Political Economy 56, 23-34.Google Scholar
  5. Dryzek, J. and C. List: 2003, ‘Social Choice Theory and Deliberative Democracy: A Reconciliation’, British Journal of Political Science 33(1), 1-28.Google Scholar
  6. Kelly, J. S.: 1989, ‘The Ostrogorski Paradox’, Social Choice and Welfare 6, 71-76.Google Scholar
  7. Kornhauser, L. A.: 1992, ‘Modelling Collegial Courts. II. Legal Doctrine’, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 8, 441-470.Google Scholar
  8. Kornhauser, L. A. and L. G. Sager: 1993, ‘The One and the Many: Adjudication in Collegial Courts’, California Law Review 81, 1-59.Google Scholar
  9. List, C.: 2002, ‘A Model of Path-Dependence in Decisions over Multiple Propositions’, Nuffield College Working Paper in Economics 2002-W15.Google Scholar
  10. List, C.: 2003, ‘A Possibility Theorem on Aggregation over Multiple Interconnected Propositions’, Mathematical Social Sciences 45(1), 1-13.Google Scholar
  11. List, C. and P. Pettit: 2002, ‘Aggregating Sets of Judgements: An Impossibility Result’, Economics and Philosophy 18, 89-110.Google Scholar
  12. May, K. O.: 1952, ‘A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision’, Econometrica 20(4), 680-684.Google Scholar
  13. Riker, W. H.: 1982, Liberalism Against Populism, W. H. Freeman, San Franscisco.Google Scholar
  14. Saari, D. G.: 1998, ‘Connecting and Resolving Sen's and Arrow's Theorem’, Social Choice and Welfare 15, 239-261.Google Scholar
  15. Sen, A. K.: 1966, ‘A Possibility Theorem on Majority Decisions’, Econometrica 34, 491-499; reprinted in Sen, A. K. (1982) Choice, Welfare and Measurement, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian List
    • 1
  • Philip Pettit
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of GovernmentLondon School of EconomicsLondonU.K.
  2. 2.Departments of Politics and PhilosophyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations