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.
Similar content being viewed by others
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