Titlebook: Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy; George R. Feiwel (Alumni Distinguished Service Pro Book 1987 George R. Feiwel

incontestable

書目名稱Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy影響因子(影響力)學科排名




書目名稱Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy網(wǎng)絡公開度




書目名稱Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy網(wǎng)絡公開度學科排名




書目名稱Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy被引頻次




書目名稱Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy被引頻次學科排名




書目名稱Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy年度引用




書目名稱Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy年度引用學科排名




書目名稱Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy讀者反饋




書目名稱Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy讀者反饋學科排名

inveigh

拋射物

Ordinal Utilitarianism part of his work to date that most strikes a moral philosopher is his critique of utilitarianism. The critique brought to moral theory the full force of the ‘ordinalist revolution’ in economics. Classical utilitarians assessed policies by their contribution to the general happiness — to the sum of

fastness

Sparks from Arrow’s Anvilts and philosophers left bereft by the Impossibility Theorem (according to which . social-choice function exists that satisfies a set of reasonable axioms of consistency, transitivity, independence or irrelevant alternatives, and …). Specifically, he made reference to the pre-Rawls suggestions of Wi

種族被根除

Maximizing Freedom of Decision: an Axiomatic Analysise on maximizing subsequent freedom of choice rather than current expected utility. It may be argued against this view that a sufficiently rich decision framework will take account of the utility of such second-order effects as future freedom of decision, properly discounted, of course. But I am deep

machination

開始發(fā)作

愛花花兒憤怒

entreat

Income Distribution and Differences in Needsy of this subject. There are those who regard differences in needs as sufficient grounds for rejecting any analysis of income inequality. For them to try to compare one distribution of income, .,…, . with another, .*,…, .*, is without meaning, since the people concerned may have quite different need

摘要記錄