Rationalizability of Plott consistent choice functions: a corrigendum

Dan Qin, Matthew Ryan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Example 2 in Qin (Soc Choice Welf 45:1–17, 2015) provides a counter-example to Ryan (Soc Choice Welf 42:193–213, 2014, Proposition 5). The erroneous step in the “proof” of Proposition 5 is the assumption that a choice function over opportunity sets is rationalizable whenever its base relation is justifiable (Lahiri, Soc Choice Welf 21:117–129, 2003). Qin’s example shows this assumption to be false. In this Corrigendum we provide a corrected version of Ryan’s (Soc Choice Welf 42:193–213, 2014, Proposition 5), based on results in Ryan (Soc Choice Welf 42:193–213, 2014) and Qin (Soc Choice Welf 45:1–17, 2015).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)761-762
Number of pages2
JournalSocial Choice and Welfare
Volume47
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Oct 1
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Economics and Econometrics

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Rationalizability of Plott consistent choice functions: a corrigendum'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this