Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T11:30:26.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Remark on Similarity Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Extract

Kramer has shown how singularly restrictive are all ‘similarity’ conditions which guarantee transitivity of majority rule by limiting the family of admissible preference orderings (so-called exclusion restrictions). For suppose, plausibly, that social alternatives are points in an open convex policy space SRn, n ≥ 2, and that voters' preferences, {Rl)1=1…‥ l, are representable by continuously differentiable semi-strictly quasi-concave utility functions ul,. Suppose further that at a single point x ε S, any three voters' utility functions have gradients ∇ul(x), ∇uf(X), ∇uk(x), no one of which can be expressed as a positive linear combination of the other two, and no two of which are linearly dependent. Then all exclusion conditions must fail on S.

Type
Notes and Comments
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kramer, G. H., ‘On a class of equilibrium conditions for majority rule’, Econometrica, XLI (1973). 285–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Consult Kramer for the definition of ‘exclusion restrictions’ and of other terms used in this Note.

2 Buck, R. C., Advanced Calculus (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965).Google Scholar

3 ø1 will be strictly increasing in at least one argument if u i has only a finite number of critical points in N(x 0).

4 Kramer, , ‘On a class of equilibrium conditions’, p. 292.Google Scholar

5 Namely, that x 0 not be a critical point of all / utility functions, and that in any neighbourhood of x 0 no two voters’ indifference surfaces be hyperplanes. This last condition will certainly obtain if all but one u i, is strictly quasi-concave. For details, see P. Wagstaff, ‘Proof of a conjecture in social choice’, forthcoming, International Economic Review.