The premiss-based approach to judgment aggregation
In the framework of judgment aggregation, we assume that some formulas of the agenda are singled out as premisses, and that both Independence (formula-wise aggregation) and Unanimity Preservation hold for them. Whether premiss-based aggregation thus defined is compatible with conclusion-based aggregation, as defined by Unanimity Preservation on the non-premisses, depends on how the premisses are logically connected, both among themselves and with other formulas. We state necessary and sufficient conditions under which the combination of both approaches leads to dictatorship (resp. oligarchy), either just on the premisses or on the whole agenda. Our analysis is inspired by the doctrinal paradox of legal theory and is arguably relevant to this field as well as political science and political economy. When the set of premisses coincides with the whole agenda, a limiting case of our assumptions, we obtain several existing results in judgment aggregation theory.
Year of publication: |
2010
|
---|---|
Authors: | Dietrich, Franz ; Mongin, Philippe |
Published in: |
Journal of Economic Theory. - Elsevier, ISSN 0022-0531. - Vol. 145.2010, 2, p. 562-582
|
Publisher: |
Elsevier |
Keywords: | Doctrinal paradox Premiss-based and conclusion-based approach Judgment aggregation Impossibility theorems Majority voting |
Saved in:
Saved in favorites
Similar items by person
-
An interpretive account of logical aggregation theory
Mongin, Philippe, (2011)
-
The premiss-based approach to judgment aggregation
Dietrich, Franz, (2010)
-
The premiss-based approach to logical aggregation
MONGIN, Philippe, (2007)
- More ...