Arrow's Axiom and Condorcet Voting Cycles: Exposition and Critique

John M. Hartwick

Working Papers from Queen's University, Department of Economics

Abstract: Arrow's axiom of independence of irrelevant alternatives has no intuitive appeal in relating social and individual rankings in certain cases (Condorcet cycling) to cases where majority voting results in a transitive social ranking of alternatives. We suggest that if person i is decisive in a Condorcet voting cycle, there is no reason why he should be decisive when cycles would not arise under majority voting. By restricting the scope of the independence axiom, social rankings can still be generated which satisfy reasonable axioms, and Arrovian dictatorship and related outcomes are avoided.

Date: Written

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:qed:wpaper:529

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from Queen's University, Department of Economics
Contact information at EDIRC.
Series data maintained by Mark Babcock ().