Elsevier

Journal of Economic Theory

Volume 5, Issue 2, October 1972, Pages 267-277
Journal of Economic Theory

Arrow's theorem, many agents, and invisible dictators

https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(72)90106-8Get rights and content

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (9)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (170)

  • Preference aggregation and atoms in measures

    2021, Journal of Mathematical Economics
    Citation Excerpt :

    A pioneering work by Kirman and Sondermann (1972) provides basic results for Arrovian social choice theory with a measure space of agents. Kirman and Sondermann (1972) consider another version of non-dictatorship, coalitional non-dictatorship, which requires a lower bound on the size of a decisive coalition, and show that in any atomless society, there exists no social welfare function that satisfies weak Pareto, independence of irrelevant alternatives, and coalitional non-dictatorship. In this paper, we examine a finitely additive measure (or mass), and allow it to be atomic.2

  • Superset-robust collective choice rules

    2021, Mathematical Social Sciences
  • Acyclicity, anonymity, and prefilters

    2020, Journal of Mathematical Economics
    Citation Excerpt :

    We conclude this section with two results that apply to an infinite population. There is a quite substantial literature on infinite-population social welfare functions and transitive collective choice rules; see, for instance, Kirman and Sondermann (1972), Hansson (1976), Mihara (1997a, b), and Takayama and Yokotani (2017). As mentioned in the introduction, a fundamental observation is that, as soon as the finiteness requirement is no longer imposed, social welfare functions that satisfy Arrow’s axioms do exist.

  • Political creativity: Antonio gramsci on political transformation

    2024, Political Creativity: Antonio Gramsci on Political Transformation
View all citing articles on Scopus

Don Brown drew the attention of one of us to Fishburn's theorem [4]. He observed the fact that Fishburn's probability measures define free ultrafilters. In a later conversation Fishburn made the same observation. We are indebted to Werner Hildenbrand, Jerry Green and a referee for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

View full text