The Problem of Constrained Judgment Aggregation

Part of the The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective book series (PSEP, volume 1)


Group decisions must often obey exogenous constraints. While in a preference aggregation problem constraints are modelled by restricting the set of feasible alternatives, this paper discusses the modelling of constraints when aggregating individual yes/no judgments on interconnected propositions. For example, court judgments in breach-of-contract cases should respect the constraint that action and obligation are necessary and sufficient for liability, and judgments on budget items should respect budgetary constraints. In this paper, we make constraints in judgment aggregation explicit by relativizing the rationality conditions of consistency and deductive closure to a constraint set, whose variation yields more or less strong notions of rationality. This approach of modelling constraints explicitly contrasts with that of building constraints as axioms into the logic, which turns compliance with constraints into a matter of logical consistency and thereby conflates requirements of ordinary logical consistency (such as not to affirm both a proposition and its negation) and requirements dictated by the environment (such as budgetary constraints). We present some general impossibility results on constrained judgment aggregation; they are immediate corollaries of known results on (unconstrained) judgment aggregation.


Binary Relation Social Choice Aggregation Function Balance Budget Judgment Aggregation 
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. Dietrich F. (2006), Judgment Aggregation: (Im)Possibility Theorems. Journal of Economic Theory 126(1): 286-298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dietrich F. (2007), A generalised model of judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 28(4): 529-565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dietrich (forthcoming), The possibility of judgment aggregation on agendas with subjunctive implications, Journal of Economic Theory Google Scholar
  4. Dietrich F., List, C. (2007a), Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 29(1): 19-33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dietrich F., List C. (2007b), Judgment aggregation with consistency alone, Working paper, London School of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  6. Dietrich F., List, C. (2008a), Judgment aggregation under constraints, in: Economics, Rational Choice and Normative Philosophy, T. Boylan and R. Gekker (eds.), London (Routledge)Google Scholar
  7. Dietrich F., List, C. (2008b), Judgment aggregation without full rationality, Social Choice and Welfare 31(1): 15-39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dokow E., Holzman R (forthcoming) Aggregation of binary evaluations, Working paper, Technion Israel Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  9. Dokow E., Holzman R. (2006), Aggregation of binary evaluations with abstentions. Working paper, Technion Israel Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  10. Konieczny S., Pino-Perez R. (2002), Merging information under constraints: a logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation 12: 773-808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. List C. (2004-7), Judgment aggregation: a bibliography on the discursive dilemma, doctrinal paradox and decisions on multiple propositions. Available at
  12. List C. (2006), Republican Freedom and the Rule of Law. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 5(2): 201-220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. List C., Pettit P. (2002), Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result. Economics and Philosophy 18: 89-110Google Scholar
  14. List C., Pettit P. (2001/2004), Aggregating Sets of Judgments: Two Impossibility Results Compared. Social and Political Theory Paper W20 (technical report ID 931), Australian National University; Synthese 140(1-2): 207-235Google Scholar
  15. Nehring K. (2003), Arrow’s theorem as a corollary. Economics Letters 80: 379-382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nehring K., Puppe C. (2002), Strategyproof Social Choice on Single-Peaked Domains: Possibility, Impossibility and the Space Between. Working paper, University of California at DavisGoogle Scholar
  17. Nehring K., Puppe C. (2008), Consistent Judgment Aggregation: The Truth-Functional Case. Social Choice and Welfare 31: 41-57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pauly M., van Hees M. (2006), Logical Constraints on Judgment Aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35: 569-585CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific MethodLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK
  2. 2.Departments of Government and PhilosophyLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations