arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.11851

Dictatorial profiles: a proof of Arrow's theorem

Agustin G. Bonifacio
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We study social welfare rules with strict individual and social preferences. A preference profile is dictatorial for a rule if the social preference coincides with some agent's preference and no agent with a different preference can change the social preference unilaterally. We establish that (i) a rule is dictatorial if and only if all of its profiles are dictatorial; and (ii) if a rule satisfies unanimity and independence (of irrelevant alternatives), then all its profiles must be dictatorial. These results constitute a proof of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.

Explore related subjects

econ.TH

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Agustin G. Bonifacio. 2026-10-08. Dictatorial profiles: a proof of Arrow's theorem. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.11851

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Learning about informativeness

We study whether individuals can learn the informativeness of their information technology through social learning. As in the classic sequential social learning model, rational agents arrive in order and make decisions based on the past actions of others and their private signals. There is uncertainty regarding the informativeness of the common signal-generating process. We show that in this setting asymptotic learning about informativeness is not guaranteed and depends crucially on the relative tail distributions of private beliefs induced by uninformative and informative signals. We identify the phenomenon of perpetual disagreement as the cause of learning and characterize learning in the canonical Gaussian environment.

econ.TH↗
arXiv2026

Justifiable Priority Violations

Making Deferred Acceptance more efficient requires priority violations, but which ones are justifiable? We argue that a priority can be justifiably violated if the affected student either (i) directly benefits from the improvement that caused said violation, or (ii) is unimprovable under any assignment that Pareto-dominates DA. We construct a ``just-below-cutoffs'' mechanism that always finds a justifiable DA-improvement whenever DA's outcome is inefficient, and build on it to construct an algorithm that expands justifiable improvements iteratively, converging to a matching that cannot be Pareto-improved by any justifiable outcome. Finally, we prove that both justifiability and consent frameworks have important limitations in reaching Pareto-efficient outcomes, and use data and simulations to quantify how binding these constraints are in practice.

econ.TH↗
arXiv2026

The Empirical Content of Reputation Effects

I revisit the classic reputation model in which a long-lived player, either normal or committed, faces short-lived players who may misspecify the commitment-type signal process. I show that the long-lived player's patience makes reputation powerful but leaves its value sensitive both to short-lived players' subjective commitment-type signal process and to discounting. Every subjective process is arbitrarily close over any fixed horizon to processes eliminating his reputation gains and also to processes preserving them. Moreover, generically, all equilibria yield substantial gains along some discount-factor sequences approaching one, while even the best equilibrium yields no positive gain in the limit along others.

econ.TH↗