Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:41:42.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

JUDGMENT AGGREGATION AND SUBJECTIVE DECISION-MAKING*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2008

Michael K. Miller
Michael K. Miller*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I present an original model in judgment aggregation theory that demonstrates the general impossibility of consistently describing decision-making purely at the group level. Only a type of unanimity rule can guarantee a group decision is consistent with supporting reasons, and even this possibility is limited to a small class of reasoning methods. The key innovation is that this result holds when individuals can reason in different ways, an allowance not previously considered in the literature. This generalizes judgment aggregation to subjective decision situations, implying that the discursive dilemma persists without individual agreement on the logical constraints. Notably, the model mirrors the typical method of choosing political representatives, and thus suggests that no voting procedure other than unanimity rule can guarantee representation that reflects electorate opinion. Finally, I apply the results to a normative argument for unanimity rule in contract theory and juries, as well as to problems posed for deliberative democratic theory and the concept of representation.

Type
Essay
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , July 2008 , pp. 205 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

REFERENCES

Bezembinder, T. and van Acker, P.. 1985. The Ostrogorski Paradox and its relation to nontransitive choice. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 11: 131–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, G. 2001. Collective coherence? International Review of Law and Economics 21: 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, B. 2002. Rational aggregation. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 1: 337–54.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. 2003. Rationality and the justification of democracy. In Philosophy and democracy: An anthology, ed. Christiano, T., 216–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coughlan, P. J. 2000. In defense of unanimous jury verdicts: mistrials, communication, and strategic voting. American Political Science Review 94: 375–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, R. A. 1986. Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Deb, R. and Kelsey, D.. 1987. On constructing a generalized Ostrogorski Paradox: necessary and sufficient conditions. Mathematical Social Sciences 14: 161–74.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. 2006. Judgment aggregation: (im)possibility theorems. Journal of Economic Theory 126: 286–98.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. 2007. A generalised model of judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 28: 529–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C.. 2007a. Arrow's theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 29: 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C.. 2007b. Strategy-proof judgment aggregation. Economics and Philosophy 23: 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C.. Forthcoming. Judgment aggregation without full rationality. Social Choice and Welfare.Google Scholar
Dokow, E. and Holzman, R.. 2005. Aggregation of binary evaluations. Working paper.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1998. Introduction. In Deliberative democracy, ed. Elster, J., 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, J. D. 1998. Deliberation as discussion. In Deliberative democracy, ed. Elster, J., 44–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feddersen, T. and Pessendorfer, W.. 1998. Convicting the innocent: The inferiority of unanimous jury verdicts under strategic voting. American Political Science Review 92: 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. 2006. A representation theorem for voting with logical consequences. Economics and Philosophy 22: 181–90.Google Scholar
Kornhauser, L. A. and Sager, L. G.. 1986. Unpacking the Court. Yale Law Journal 96: 82–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerspetz, E. 1996. Paradoxes and representation. Electoral Studies 15: 83–92.Google Scholar
List, C. 2006. The discursive dilemma and public reason. Ethics 116: 362–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. and Pettit, P.. 2002. Aggregating sets of judgments: an impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy 18: 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. and Pettit, P.. 2004. Aggregating sets of judgments: two impossibility results compared. Synthese 140: 207–35.Google Scholar
List, C. and Pettit, P.. 2006. Group agency and supervenience. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 44: 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. and Puppe, C.. Forthcoming. Judgment aggregation: a survey. In Oxford handbook of rational and social choice, ed. Anand, P., Puppe, C. and Pattaniak, P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nehring, K. and Puppe, C.. 2007. Abstract Arrowian aggregation. Working paper.Google Scholar
Nehring, K. and Puppe, C.. Forthcoming. Consistent judgment aggregation: the truth-functional case. Social Choice and Welfare.Google Scholar
Nermuth, M. 1992. Two-stage discrete aggregation: The Ostrogorski paradox and related phenomena. Social Choice and Welfare 9: 99–116.Google Scholar
Nurmi, H. 1998. Rational behaviour and the design of institutions. Cheltenhave: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Pauly, M. and van Hees, M.. 2006. Logical constraints on judgment aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35: 569–85.Google Scholar
Persico, N. 2004. Committee design with endogenous information. Review of Economic Studies 71: 165–91.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. 2001. Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophica Issues 11: 268–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigozzi, G. 2005. Two aggregation paradoxes in social decision making: The Ostrogorski paradox and the discursive dilemma. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 2: 33–42.Google Scholar
Pigozzi, G. 2006. Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account. Synthese 152: 285–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, D. and Daudt, H.. 1976. The Ostrogorski paradox: a peculiarity of compound majority decision. European Journal of Political Research 4: 391–8.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. 1950. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy (3rd edn.). New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
van Hees, M. 2007. The limits of epistemic democracy. Social Choice and Welfare 28: 649–66.Google Scholar