Springer Science and Business Media LLC

In a majority rule voting game, the uncovered set is the set of alternatives each of which can defeat every other alternative in the space either directly or indirectly at one remove. Research has suggested that outcomes under most reasonable agenda processes (both sincere and sophisticated) will be confined to the uncovered set. Most research on the uncovered set has been done in the context of voting games with a finite number of alternatives and relatively little is known about the properties of the uncovered set in spatial voting games. We examine the geometry of the uncovered set in spatial voting games and the geometry of two important subsets of the uncovered set, the Banks set and the Schattschneider set. In particular, we find both general upper and lower limits on the size of the uncovered set, and we give the exact bounds of the uncovered set for situations with three voters. For situations with three voters, we show that the Banks set is identical to the uncovered set.

Sometimes we believe that others receive harmful information. However, Marschak’s value of information framework always assigns non-negative value under expected utility: it starts from the decision maker’s beliefs – and one can never anticipate information’s harmfulness for oneself. The impact of decision makers’ capabilities to process information and of their expectations remains hidden behind the individual and subjective perspective Marschak’s framework assumes. By introducing a second decision maker as a point of reference, this paper introduces a way for evaluating others’ information from a cross-individual, imperfect expectations perspective for agents maximising expected utility. We define the cross-value of information that can become negative – then the information is “harmful” from a cross-individual perspective – and we define (mutual) cost of limited information processing capabilities and imperfect expectations as an opportunity cost from this same point of reference. The simple relationship between these two expected utility-based concepts and Marschak’s framework is shown, and we discuss evaluating short-term reactions of stock market prices to new information as an important domain of valuing others’ information.

This paper tests whether individual perceptions of markets as good or bad for a public good is correlated with the propensity to report gaps in willingness to pay and willingness to accept revealed within an incentive compatible mechanism. Identifying people based on a notion of market affinity, we find a substantial part of the gap can be explained by controlling for some variables that were not controlled for before. This result suggests the valuation gap for public goods can be reduced through well-defined variables.

Arrow proved the inconsistency of a set of reasonable looking conditions on a social decision rule. These conditions are stated and their rationale explained. It is argued that the blame for the inconsistency must lie with Arrow's Collective Rationality condition. Arrow's abstract problem is generalized and interpreted in terms of individual as well as collective decision-making. His conditions are revised so that (1) cardinal - even interpersonal - utility comparisons are allowed and (2) the Collective Rationality condition - which formulates the traditional conception of rational choice as maximizing choice - is weakened to its bare bones. The revised set of conditions is still inconsistent. Once again the culprit is the Collective Rationality condition, now drastically weakened: even the bare bones of Arrow's conception of rational choice as maximizing choice is untenable. An alternative conception is proposed.

Do axiomatic derivations advance positive economics? If economists are interested in predicting how people behave, without a pretense to change individual decision making, how can they benefit from representation theorems, which are no more than equivalence results? We address these questions. We propose several ways in which representation results can be useful and discuss their implications for axiomatic decision theory.

In two experiments, participants had to choose between a sure and a risky option. The sure option was presented either in a gain or a loss frame. Need was defined as a minimum score the participants had to reach. Moreover, choices were made under two different time constraints and with three different levels of induced need to be reached within a fixed number of trials. The two experiments differed with respect to the specific amounts to win and the need levels. The $$2 \times 2 \times 3$$ design was a within-subject design. Data were evaluated on an overall and on a group level, the latter based on participants’ stated risk preference and on revealed preferences (choice proportions) using cluster analysis across subjects. Overall, the results showed riskier behavior when the choice options were presented as losses as compared to gains (framing effect) and when the induced need was highest. Time limits enhanced the framing effect.

There exists psychological evidence that consumers do not consider all available items in the market, which can lead to the “more-is-less” effect, a phenomenon where having more options causes a welfare reduction (Llears et al. in J Econ Theory 170:70–85, 2017). Under this more-is-less effect, we face a dilemma that adding new opportunities may both improve and worsen individual well-being. This study proposes a hypothesis that “more is always better,” which implies that adding new opportunities cannot worsen individual well-being, is a bias to which moral heuristics leads. A satisfactory resolution of this dilemma is act-consequentialism over menus, which is an ex-post and third-party evaluation of opportunity sets. We provide an axiomatic foundation for act-consequentialism over menus and apply it to policymakers’ menu-providing policies.

An agent is rational by dominance then states of mind (DSM) if he makes his decisions by, first, preselecting the alternatives that are not dominated by any other alternative in the choice set, and second, by choosing the preselected alternative corresponding to his state of mind. This state of mind is dependent on the previous choices he made. An agent is rational by states of mind then dominance (SMD) if he makes his decisions by, first, preselecting the alternatives corresponding to his state of mind and second, choosing the alternative that is not dominated. We give axiomatizations for SMD-rational or DSM-rational choice functions.