Social Choice and Individual Values¶
Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social Choice and Individual Values. Yale University Press.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Nirvana Fallacy
- Consider the argument that voting is a poor mechanism for collective choice because it is subject to manipulation, low information, and impossibility results, and therefore not legitimate.
This sourceCowles Commission Monograph 12. New York: Wiley, 1951. Proves the impossibility theorem on aggregating individual preferences into a collective choice; cited for the claim that every feasible collective-choice mechanism has pathologies.
- Consider the argument that voting is a poor mechanism for collective choice because it is subject to manipulation, low information, and impossibility results, and therefore not legitimate.
Domain-specific¶
- Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
- The theorem proves that with three or more alternatives the only aggregation rule satisfying the first three axioms is dictatorship — a rule that simply reports one individual's preferences as the social ordering — thereby violating the fourth
This sourceArrow's Social Choice and Individual Values defines a social welfare function as dictatorial when there exists an individual whose preferences are always followed, the outcome Condition 5 (non-dictatorship) is meant to exclude. Arrow's theorem itself: within the Arrow framework, weakening non-dictatorship yields a dictatorship, which is what the corrected form of this sentence must say.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“were the only two [alternatives]. Let A, B, and C be the three [alternatives], and 1, 2, and”
- The theorem proves that with three or more alternatives the only aggregation rule satisfying the first three axioms is dictatorship — a rule that simply reports one individual's preferences as the social ordering — thereby violating the fourth
- Compensation principle
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 3 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:b0d30a779ddf · see in the full table