Social choice functions are generalized to handle Nash’s independence of irrelevant alternatives. Possibility and impossibility results are established.

This issue is not conference proceedings.Instead, the conference served as a springboard for this project and an invitation to colleagues to submit papers in honour of John.We are delighted that so many of them chose to do so.It is obvious that Social Choice and Welfare is the perfect outlet for such a tribute to John.The scope of John's contributions is impressive, going well beyond economics with incursions in other academic domains such as philosophy and biology.Incidentally, according to his CV, his first published article appeared in Philosophical Studies, a respected journal of analytic philosophy.Regarding economics, John's research interests have not been limited to social choice and welfare theory, although most of his papers deal with what can be broadly defined as normative economics.His thesis, under Karl Shell's supervision, was on public economics.He wrote contributions in the field from the end of the 1970s

A brief history of social choice and welfare theory.

Book Review| August 01 2020 Aristotle’s Critique of Political Economy, with a Contemporary Application by Robert L. Gallagher Aristotle’s Critique of Political Economy, with a Contemporary Application. By Gallagher, Robert L.Abingdon: Routledge, 2018. xviii; 223 pp. $140.00. Maurice Salles Maurice Salles University of Caen-Normandy Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google History of Political Economy (2020) 52 (4): 801–808. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-8604153 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Maurice Salles; Aristotle’s Critique of Political Economy, with a Contemporary Application by Robert L. Gallagher. History of Political Economy 1 August 2020; 52 (4): 801–808. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-8604153 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter Books & JournalsAll JournalsHistory of Political Economy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright 2020 by Duke University Press2020 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Book Reviews You do not currently have access to this content.

La contribution de Kenneth Arrow a la connaissance est considerable et depasse les limites de la science economique. Nous ne pouvons comparer son apport qu'a celui de savants comme Alan Turing ou John von Neumann. Il est facile de constater que les travaux d'Arrow ont une influence en science politique, en mathematiques, en recherche operationnelle et en philosophie morale. Un aspect plus surprenant est l'importance de ces travaux en philosophie des sciences et en sciences de l'ingenieur. Nous allons ici nous concentrer sur l'apport a la science economique et ne mentionnerons les autres domaines qu'accessoirement. En ce qui concerne la science economique, les contributions essentielles sont, a notre avis, ses travaux sur le choix social, l'equilibre general, la theorie de la decision individuelle, le traitement de l'incertitude (en particulier dans les modeles d'equilibre) et la theorie economique de l'information. Une preuve, s'il en fallait, de l'importance de l'apport d'Arrow a la connaissance est le fait que son nom a ete associe a trois sujets particulierement importants de la science economique contemporaine : le theoreme d'(im)possibilite d'Arrow, la theorie de l'equilibre general a la Arrow-Debreu et la mesure d'Arrow-Pratt d'aversion pour le risque. (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

This paper describes an unknown episode in the development of the theory of social choice. In the Summer 1949, while at RAND, Quine worked on Arrow’s (im)possibility theorem. This work was eventually published as a paper on (applied) set theory totally disconnected from social choice. The working paper directly linked to Arrow’s work was never published.

In 2016, on two occasions, humanity witnessed major changes in the organization of the world due to the outcomes of voting. First, on June 23, 2016, the U.K. electorate (in fact 52% of this electorate) voted to leave the E.U. In my view, contrary to a common belief, referenda are a threat against democracy because the statements on which voters must take a decision are often ambiguous (if not totally irrelevant, as in the case of the previous U.K. referendum regarding Alternative Vote on May ...

The main purpose of these comments on Phelps’s paper in the New York Review of Books is to indicate that the precedence of the good over the just and the pre-eminence at this time of growth and innovations in developed countries are debatable.