zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Fair social decision under uncertainty and belief disagreements. (English) Zbl 1422.91232
Summary: This paper aims to address two issues related to simultaneous aggregation of utilities and beliefs. The first one is related to how to integrate both inequality and uncertainty considerations into social decision making. The second one is related to how social decision should take disagreements in beliefs into account. To accomplish this, whereas individuals are assumed to abide by Savage model’s of subjective expected utility, society is assumed to prescribe, either to each individual when the ex ante individual well-being is favored or to itself when the ex post individual well-being is favored, acting in accordance with the maximin expected utility theory of I. Gilboa and D. Schmeidler [J. Math. Econ. 18, No. 2, 141–153 (1989; Zbl 0675.90012)]. Furthermore, it adapts an ex ante Pareto-type condition proposed by G. Gayer et al. [“Pareto efficiency with different beliefs”, J. Legal. Stud. 43, No. S2, 151–171 (2014; doi:10.1086/676636)], which says that a prospect Pareto dominates another one if the former gives a higher expected utility than the latter one, for each individual, for all individuals’ beliefs. In the context where the ex ante individual welfare is favored, our ex ante Pareto-type condition is shown to be equivalent to social utility taking the form of a MaxMinMin social welfare function, as well as to the individual set of priors being contained within the range of individual beliefs. However, when the ex post individual welfare is favored, the same Pareto-type condition is shown to be equivalent to social utility taking the form of a MaxMinMin social welfare function, as well as to the social set of priors containing only weighted averages of individual beliefs.

91B14 Social choice
91B08 Individual preferences
Full Text: DOI
[1] Alon, S.; Gayer, G., Utilitarian preferences with multiple priors, Econometrica, 84, 1181-1201, (2016) · Zbl 1419.91235
[2] Aczel, J.; Maksa, G., Solution of the rectangular \(m\times n\) generalized bisymmetry equation and of the problem of consistent aggregation, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 203, 104-126, (1996) · Zbl 0858.39013
[3] Anscombe, FJ; Aumann, RJ, A definition of subjective probability, Ann. Math. Stat., 34, 199-205, (1963) · Zbl 0114.07204
[4] Ben-Porath, E.; Gilboa, I.; Schmeidler, D., On the measurement of Inequality under Uncertainty, J. Econ. Theory, 75, 194-204, (1997) · Zbl 0888.90033
[5] Billot, A., Vergopoulos, V.: Utilitarianism with Prior Heterogeneity (2014). ftp://mse.univ-paris1.fr/pub/mse/CES2014/14049.pdf
[6] Blume, L.E., Cogley, T., Easley, D.A., Sargent, T.J., Tsyrennikov. V.: A case for incomplete markets (2015). http://www.tomsargent.com/research/case-for-incompleteness.pdf · Zbl 1417.91211
[7] Broome, J.: Weighing Goods: Equality Uncertainty and Time. Blackwell, Oxford (1991)
[8] Brunnermeier, MK; Simsek, A.; Xiong, W., A welfare criterion for models with distorted beliefs, Q. J. Econ., 129, 1753-1797, (2014) · Zbl 1400.91167
[9] Chambers, CP; Hayashi, T., Preference aggregation under uncertainty: Savage vs Pareto, Game Econ. Behav., 54, 430-440, (2006) · Zbl 1125.91035
[10] Chambers, CP; Hayashi, T., Preference aggregation with incomplete information, Econometrica, 82, 589-599, (2014) · Zbl 1419.91270
[11] Danan, E.; Gajdos, T.; Hill, B.; Tallon, J-M, Robust social decisions, Am. Econ. Rev., 106, 2407-2425, (2016)
[12] Debreu, G.; Karlin, S. (ed.); Suppes, P. (ed.), Topological Methods in Cardinal Utility Theory, in Arrow, 16-26, (1960), Palo Alto
[13] Diamond, PA, Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparison of utility: comment, J. Polit. Econ., 75, 765-766, (1967)
[14] Epstein, L.; Segal, U., Quadratic social welfare functions, J. Polit. Econ., 100, 691-712, (1992)
[15] Fishburn, P.C.: Utility Theory for Decision Making. Pubbl Oper Res Ser 18. Wiley, New York (1970)
[16] Fishburn, PC, Equity axioms for public risk, Oper Res, 32, 901-908, (1984) · Zbl 0546.90008
[17] Fleurbaey, M., Two variants of Harsanyi’s aggregation theorem, Econ. Lett., 105, 300-302, (2009) · Zbl 1179.91069
[18] Fleurbaey, M., Assessing risky social situations, J. Polit. Econ., 118, 649-680, (2010)
[19] Fleurbaey, M.; Gajdos, T.; Zuber, S., Social rationality, separability, and equity under uncertainty, Math. Soc. Sci., 73, 13-22, (2015) · Zbl 1312.91049
[20] Fleurbaey, M.; Zuber, S., Fair management of social risk, J. Econ. Theory, 169, 666-706, (2017) · Zbl 1400.91164
[21] Gajdos, T.; Maurin, E., Unequal uncertainties and uncertain inequalities: an axiomatic approach, J. Econ. Theory, 116, 93-118, (2004) · Zbl 1088.91021
[22] Gajdos, T.; Tallon, J-M; Vergnaud, J-C, Representation and aggregation of preferences under uncertainty, J. Econ. Theory, 141, 698-99, (2008) · Zbl 1140.91340
[23] Gajdos, T.; Weymark, J., Multidimensional generalized Gini indices, Econ. Theory, 26, 471-496, (2005) · Zbl 1084.91050
[24] Gayer, G.; Gilboa, I.; Samuelson, L.; Schmeidler, D., Pareto efficiency with different beliefs, J. Legal Stud., 43, 151-171, (2014)
[25] Gilboa, I.: Theory of decision under uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009) · Zbl 1168.91005
[26] Gilboa, I.; Samuelson, L.; Schmeidler, D., No-betting-Pareto dominance, Econometrica, 82, 1405-1442, (2014) · Zbl 1419.91479
[27] Gilboa, I.; Schmeidler, D., Maxmin expected utility with non-unique priors, J. Math. Econ., 18, 141-153, (1989) · Zbl 0675.90012
[28] Gilboa, I.; Samet, D.; Schmeidler, D., Utilitarian aggregation of beliefs and tastes, J. Polit. Econ., 112, 932-938, (2004)
[29] Gorman, W., Conditions for additive separability, Econometrica, 36, 605-609, (1968) · Zbl 0165.23104
[30] Hammond, PJ, Ex ante and ex post welfare optimality under uncertainty, Economics, 48, 235-250, (1981)
[31] Hammond, PJ; Pattanaik, P. (ed.); Salles, M. (ed.), Ex post optimality as a dynamically consistent objective for collective choice under uncertainty, 175-205, (1983), Amsterdam
[32] Harsanyi, JC, Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility, J. Polit. Econ., 63, 309-321, (1955)
[33] Jackson, MO; Yariv, L., Collective dynamic choice: the necessity of time inconsistency, Am Econ J Microecon, 7, 150-178, (2015)
[34] Karni, E.; Schmeidler, D.; Vind, K., On state dependent preferences and subjective probabilities, Econometrica, 51, 1021-1031, (1983) · Zbl 0516.90008
[35] Karni, E.: Decision making under uncertainty: the case of state-dependent preferences. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1985)
[36] Keeney, RL, Equity and public risk, Oper. Res., 28, 527-534, (1980)
[37] Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York (1976). republished by CUP (1993)
[38] Miyagishima, K.: Efficiency, equity, and social rationality under uncertainty (2016) Online https://sites.google.com/site/kanamemiagishimashp/eg
[39] Mongin, P., Consistent bayesian aggregation, J. Econ. Theory, 66, 313-351, (1995) · Zbl 0845.90012
[40] Mongin, P.: Spurious unanimity and the Pareto principle. THEMA, Universite’ de Cergy-Pontoise (working paper, 1997)
[41] Mongin, P., The Paradox of the Bayesian experts and state-dependent utility theory, J. Math. Econ., 29, 331-361, (1998) · Zbl 0953.91009
[42] Mongin, P., Spurious unanimity and the Pareto principle, Econ. Philos., 32, 511-532, (2016)
[43] Mongin, P.; Pivato, M., Ranking multidimensional alternatives and uncertain prospects, J. Econ. Theory, 157, 146-171, (2015) · Zbl 1330.91060
[44] Mongin, P.; Pivato, M.; Adler, M. (ed.); Fleurbaey, M. (ed.), Social evaluation under risk and uncertainty, (2016), Oxford
[45] Mongin, P., Pivato, M.: Social preferences under twofold uncertainty, MIMEO (2017)
[46] Posner, E., Weyl, G.: An FDA for Financial Innovation: Applying the Insurable Interest Doctrine to 21st Century Financial Markets, 107 Northwestern University Law Review 1307 (2013)
[47] Qu, X., Separate aggregation of beliefs and values under ambiguity, Econ. Theory., 63, 503-519, (2017) · Zbl 1404.91093
[48] Savage, L.J.: The Foundations of Statistics, 2nd edn. Dover, New York (1972)
[49] Wakker, P.P.: Additive Representations of Preferences. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1989)
[50] Zuber, S., Harsanyi’s theorem without the sure-thing principle: on the consistent aggregation of Monotonic Bernoullian and Archimedean preferences, J. Math. Econ., 63, 78-83, (2016) · Zbl 1368.91066
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.