Rationalizability of Plott consistent choice functions: a corrigendum

Dan Qin, Matthew Ryan*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


    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)1-2
    Number of pages2
    JournalSocial Choice and Welfare
    Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2016 May 2

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Economics and Econometrics
    • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)


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

    Cite this