Advertisement

Collaborative Decision Analysis and e-Democracy

  • Roman Efremov
  • David Ríos Insua
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation book series (AGDN, volume 5)

Abstract

e-Democracy essentially refers to involving groups of citizens in public policy decision making through electronic means. This may be done by implementing standard political approaches based on debating and voting or through a more analytically oriented perspective. In this chapter, we review key approaches to group decision support assuming that participants adopt a decision-analytic style. We discuss how relevant are these approaches for e-democracy processes in reference to democratic theories, as well as to some specific requirements on public decision making, such as intelligibility and transparency for an average participant, scalability and implementation.

Keywords

Reservation Price Vote Rule Pareto Frontier Aspiration Level Approval Vote 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work of DRI and RE was supported by grants from ESF, the Spanish Government and e-Democracia-CM.

References

  1. Arrow, K. J. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York, NY, Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Bacharach, M. 1975. Group decisions in the face of differences of opinion. Management Science, 22, 182–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charnes, A. and W. W. Cooper. 1961. Management Models and Industrial Applications of Linear Programming, Vol. 1. New York, NY, Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Cohon, J. 1978. Multiobjective Programming and Planning. New York, NY, Academic Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eden, C. and J. Radford, Eds. 1990. Tackling Strategic Problems: The Role of Group Decision Support. London, Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Efremov, R., D. Ríos Insua and A. Lotov. 2009. A framework for participatory group decision support over the web based on Pareto frontier visualization, goal identification and arbitration. European Journal of Operational Research, 199, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehtamo, H., E. Kettunen and R. P. Hamalainen. 2000. Searching for joint gains in multi-party negotiations. European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher, R. and W. Ury. 1981. Getting to Yes. Boston, MA, Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. French, S. 1985. Group consensus probability distributions: a critical survey. In J. M. Bernardo, M. H. DeGroot, D. V. Lindley and A. F. M. Smith (Eds.), Bayesian Statistics 2, Amsterdam, North-Holland. pp. 183–201.Google Scholar
  11. French, S. 1986. Calibration and the expert problem. Management Science, 32, 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. French, S. 1988. Readings in Decision Analysis. London, Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  13. French, S. 2003. Modelling, making inferences and making decisions: the roles of sensitivity analysis. TOP, 11, 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. French, S. and D. Ríos Insua. 2000. Statistical Decision Theory. London, Arnold.Google Scholar
  15. Genest, C. 1984. A characterization theorem for externally bayesian groups. Annals of Statistics, 12, 1100–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Genest, C. and J. V. Zidek. 1986. Combining probability distributions: a critique and an annotated bibliography. Statistical Science, 1, 114–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gregory, R., B. Fischoff and T. MacDaniels. 2005. Acceptable input: using decision analysis to guide public policy deliberations. Decision Analysis, 2, 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ignizio, J. P. 1985. Introduction to Linear Goal Programming. Beverly Hills, CA, Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Kalai, E. and M. Smorodinsky. 1977. Other solutions to Nash’s bargaining problem. Econometrica, 45, 1623–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keeney, R. L.. 1976. Group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Management Science, 23, 140–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keeney, R. L. and H. Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs. London, Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Kelly, J. S. 1978. Arrow Impossibility Theorems. New York, NY, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kersten, G. E. 2001. Modeling distributive and integrative negotiations. Review and revised characterization. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10, 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kettunen, E., H. Ehtamo et al. 1999. Joint gains negotiation support in the internet. System Analysis Laboratory, http://www.jointgains.hut.fi
  25. Livne, Z. A. 1988. Axiomatic characterizations of the Raiffa and the Kalai-Smorodinsky solutions to the bargaining problem. Operations Research, 37, 972–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lotov, A. V., V. A. Bushenkov and G. K. Kamenev. 2004. Interactive Decision Maps. Approximation and Visualization of Pareto Frontier. Boston, MA, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  27. Luce, R. D. and H. Raiffa. 1957. Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. New York, NY, Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Miettinen, K. M. 1999. Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization. Boston, MA, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  29. Nash, J. 1950. The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Phillips, L. D. 1982. Requisite decision modelling: a case study. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 33, 303–311.Google Scholar
  31. Phillips, L. D. 1984. A theory of requisite decision models. Acta Psychologica, 56, 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raiffa, H. 1953. Arbitration schemes for generalized two-person games. In H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker (Eds.), Contributions to the Theory of Garnes 11, Annals of Mathematics Studies, No. 28. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Raiffa, H., J. Richardson and D. Metcalfe. 2002. Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. Cambridge, MA, Belknap.Google Scholar
  34. Ríos Insua, D. and F. Ruggeri. 2000. Robust Bayesian Analysis. New York, NY, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ríos Insua, D. 1990. Sensitivity Analysis in Multiobjective Decision Making. New York, NY, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ríos, J. and D. Ríos Insua. 2008. A framework for participatory budget elaboration support. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59, 268–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ríos, J. and D. Ríos Insua 2010. Balanced increment and concession methods for negotiation support. RACSAM A, 104(1), 41–56.Google Scholar
  38. Steuer, R. 1986. Multiple Criteria Optimization. New York, NY, Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Stone, M. 1961. The opinion pool. Ann Math Stat, 32, 1339–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomson, W. 1994. Cooperative models of bargaining. In R. J. Aumann and S. Hart (Eds.), Handbook of Game Theory, Vol. II, Chapter 35. Amsterdam, Elsevier. pp. 1238–1284.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Statistics and Operational ResearchRey Juan Carlos UniversityMadridSpain
  2. 2.Royal Academy of SciencesMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations