Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.28180

The Scale of Universalization in Multiplicative Kantian Equilibrium

Abstract

Multiplicative Kantian equilibrium requires agents to evaluate whether they would prefer all players to change their actions by a common proportional factor. This note argues that such a counterfactual is not fully specified by the material payoff environment alone: one must also specify the scale in which proportional universalization is performed. Building on the Sher-Roemer discussion of strategic non-invariance, we characterize how a smooth monotone reparametrization of actions changes the multiplicative Kantian first-order condition. We then illustrate the issue in a simple two-country abatement problem. Universalizing physical abatement and universalizing abatement expenditures are both natural interpretations of "doing one's part," but they lead to different Kantian outcomes, even though they describe the same material environment. The note also identifies special cases in which the interior first-order condition is representation-invariant, including common-exponent power transformations and symmetric profiles under identical transformations. The conclusion is constructive: applying multiplicative Kantian equilibrium to an economic environment requires specifying both the use of the Kantian criterion and the represented scale in which the Kantian counterfactual is evaluated.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Igor Sloev, Gerasimos Lianos. 2026-10-20. The Scale of Universalization in Multiplicative Kantian Equilibrium. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28180

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Collective decisions under uncertainty: efficiency, ex-ante fairness, and normalization

This paper studies preference aggregation under uncertainty in the multi-profile framework and characterizes a new class of aggregation rules that can address classical concerns about Harsanyi's (1995) utilitarian rules. Our aggregation rules, which we call \textit{relative fair aggregation rules}, are grounded in three key ideas: utilitarianism, egalitarianism, and the 0--1 normalization of individual utilities. These rules are parameterized by a set of weight vectors over individuals and evaluate each ambiguous alternative by taking the minimum weighted sum of 0--1 normalized utility levels over the weight set. For the characterization, we propose two novel axioms, \textit{weak preference for mixing} and \textit{restricted certainty independence}, with normative justifications. Additional results clarify how these axioms capture the utilitarian and egalitarian attitudes of the rules.

econ.TH↗

Submission quotas as self-screening when manuscript production is cheap

Generative AI enables authors to produce more manuscripts at lower cost. But evaluation by expert editors and referees remains scarce. In this context, the value of an author's submission rights can increase. Major research repositories and journals are reacting by imposing submission quotas and fees. Non-transferable author quotas transform submission of a manuscript into a revealed-priority decision. Authors construct a portfolio of their highest-ranked manuscripts. A common fee charges an author for every manuscript they submit. Both methods have drawbacks. Quotas do not flexibly allocate scarce review capacity to authors who have unusually strong realised candidate sets. Fees can generate heterogeneous submission thresholds that may be systematically related to an author's baseline portfolio quality. In this paper, I derive the condition under which submission quotas yield weakly higher mean reviewed value than fees, given an equal expected review load. When project values are bounded and candidate manuscripts are abundant, an equal-load fee can price out some authors entirely.

econ.TH↗

Falsification-proof non-market allocation mechanisms

Relying on manipulable characteristics to target the allocation of resources is fraught with difficulties. Naively optimal rules lead to falsification and allocative inefficiency. Optimizing the rule for allocative efficiency while accounting for falsification typically induces falsification, at a heavy cost to the agents. Moreover, falsification generates negative externalities. We characterize optimal falsification-proof rules under a broad range of falsification technologies. We also provide an honesty condition under which they solve the unconstrained problem of a planner who maximizes a weighted sum of allocative surplus and agents' welfare.

econ.TH↗