Search results

26 p. ; Given a profile of preferences on a set of alternatives, a majority relation is a complete binary relation that agrees with the strict preference of a strict majority of these preferences whenever such strict strict majority is observed. We show that a majority binary relation is, among all conceivable binary relations, the most representative of the profile of preferences from which it emanates. We define "the most representative" to mean "the closest in the aggregate". This requires a definition of what it means for a pair of preferences to be closer to each other then another. We assume that this definition takes the form of a distance function defined over the set of all conceivable preferences. We identify a necessary and sufficient condition for such a distance to be minimized by the preference of the majority. This condition requires the distance to be additive with respect to a plausible notion of compromise between preferences. The well-known Kemeny distance between preference does satisfy this property. We also provide a characterization of the class of distances satisfying this property as numerical representations of a primitive qualitative proximity relation between preferences.

26 p. ; Given a profile of preferences on a set of alternatives, a majority relation is a complete binary relation that agrees with the strict preference of a strict majority of these preferences whenever such strict strict majority is observed. We show that a majority binary relation is, among all conceivable binary relations, the most representative of the profile of preferences from which it emanates. We define "the most representative" to mean "the closest in the aggregate". This requires a definition of what it means for a pair of preferences to be closer to each other then another. We assume that this definition takes the form of a distance function defined over the set of all conceivable preferences. We identify a necessary and sufficient condition for such a distance to be minimized by the preference of the majority. This condition requires the distance to be additive with respect to a plausible notion of compromise between preferences. The well-known Kemeny distance between preference does satisfy this property. We also provide a characterization of the class of distances satisfying this property as numerical representations of a primitive qualitative proximity relation between preferences.

The paper provides robust normative comparisons of 12 OECD countries based on their distributions of disposable income and access to two regional public goods: infant mortality and pupil–teacher ratios at public schools. Comparisons are performed using two and three‐dimensional dominance criteria that coincide with the unanimity of utilitarian judgments taken over specific classes of utility functions. The criteria succeed in ranking conclusively about 30% of all possible comparisons in the two‐dimensional case, compared with 67% for one‐dimensional income‐based comparisons and 6% for three‐dimensional ones. Introducing local public goods seems to worsen the relative standing of Anglo‐Saxon countries.

We use a non-linear hedonic model to estimate the implicit prices of 17 local public goods in a Paris suburban area on an original data set of some 8200 housing units. The results reveal a robust effect of local public school quality (measured both by the fraction of junior high school students that are at least 2 years behind grade level and the student/teacher ratio) on house prices. It is observed that housing owners' marginal willingness to pay for reducing commuting time is roughly similar for public transportation than for car transportation. Another noticeable result is the complete capitalization of local taxes at a discount rate of 3.5%.
An illustration of the potential usefulness of the results for cost-benefit analysis is also provided.

Résumé

This book presents a range of papers by philosophers and economists who consider the definition and value of liberty; freedom in rights and equality of opportunity. Until recently freedom has played no explicit role in the conceptual framework of economists, however freedom seems to be at the heart of economics. The book provides a substantial contribution to the fruitful dialogue between the philosophy and economics in this area. Each chapter is integrated being followed by comments which explore the underlying debates. Contributors are French economists, philosophers and political scientists

Research in the humanities and social sciences (HSS), which is regularly asked the question of its "usefulness", has been massively mobilized in the first part of the year 2020, both by the media and institutions. It has shown itself to be highly responsive, adapting its schedules and objectives, and modifying its intervention formats (webinars, distance learning courses). It was much present, despite the inequalities generated by the lockdown, particularly in terms of gender. The aim of this work is to offer the reader an analysis mobilizing the work of the SHS as a whole. Without claiming to be exhaustive, it weaves the threads, through the questions it addresses, from one discipline to another, composing a whole in which the social sciences and humanities resonate with one another, deploy their complementarity, and create a common analysis. Its objective is to emphasize the existence of a scientific capital of the HSS as such, to address the various questions raised by the Covid-19 pandemic. Current HSS research on the pandemic, its political management, and its stakes, is not developed ex nihilo. While taking the measure of the specificity of the present times, it is based on a set of theoretical frameworks, methods and analyses elaborated in other contexts, remobilized, updated and enriched in the light of the issues associated with the Covid 19 pandemic. Moreover, this work aims at taking into account from the outset the global dimension of the pandemic, and not just the French situation. Thus, several national and even continental contexts are explored on one point or another and the global dimension of the pandemic is taken into account as such. Finally, this document also looks at the very way in which the humanities and social sciences were mobilized in France in the context of the Covid 19 pandemic, at the collaborative forms and multidisciplinary practices particularly adopted in the face of this pandemic. It is structured in five parts: the first deals with the way in which the HSS make the crisis a ...