Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-zlj4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-27T22:48:43.456Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

AN EXTENDED FRAMEWORK FOR PREFERENCE RELATIONS – CORRECTED VERSION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2011

Johan E. Gustafsson*
Affiliation:
Royal Institute of Technology

Abstract

It is regretted that the originally published paper (doi:10.1017/S0266267111000010, published online 22 June 2011) was not the author's final amended version. We apologise for this oversight and reproduce the entire corrected paper here in print and online, with revised notation.

In order to account for non-traditional preference relations the present paper develops a new, richer framework for preference relations. This new framework provides characterizations of non-traditional preference relations, such as incommensurateness and instability, that may hold when neither preference nor indifference do. The new framework models relations with swaps, which are conceived of as transfers from one alternative state to another. The traditional framework analyses dyadic preference relations in terms of a hypothetical choice between the two compared alternatives. The swap framework extends this approach by analysing dyadic preference relations in terms of two hypothetical choices: the choice between keeping the first of the compared alternatives or swapping it for the second; and the choice between keeping the second alternative or swapping it for the first.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Arrow, K.J. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chang, R. 2002. The possibility of parity. Ethics 112: 659688.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. and Harper, W.L. 1978. Counterfactuals and two kinds of expected utility. In Foundations and Applications of Decision Theory, Vol. I, ed. Hooker, C.A., Leach, J.J., and McClennen, E.F., 125162. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Joyce, J.M. 1999. The Foundations of Causal Decision Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R.H. 1990. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy 98: 13251348.Google Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. 2008. Value relations. Theoria 74: 1849.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1988. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Savage, L.J. 1954. The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. 1970. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. 1980. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1: 3960.Google Scholar