IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/spr/joecth/v16y2000i2p295-312.html
   My bibliography  Save this item

Choice under complete uncertainty: axiomatic characterizations of some decision rules

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as


Cited by:

  1. Vázquez, Carmen, 2014. "Ranking opportunity sets on the basis of similarities of preferences: A proposal," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 23-26.
  2. Ran Spiegler, 2001. "Inferring a linear ordering over a power set," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 31-49, August.
  3. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
  4. Thai Ha-Huy & Tuyet Mai Nguyen, 2019. "Optimal growth and Ramsey-Rawls criteria," Documents de recherche 19-02, Centre d'Études des Politiques Économiques (EPEE), Université d'Evry Val d'Essonne.
  5. Ahmad Yaman Abdin & Francesco De Pretis & Jürgen Landes, 2023. "Fast Methods for Drug Approval: Research Perspectives for Pandemic Preparedness," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-17, January.
  6. Sebastian Bervoets, 2010. "An axiomatic approach to predictability of outcomes in an interactive setting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 311-323, March.
  7. Ritxar Arlegi, 2001. "Rational Evaluation of Actions Under Complete Uncertainty," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 0114, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
  8. Ha-Huy, Thai & Nguyen, Thi Tuyet Mai, 2022. "Saving and dissaving under Ramsey–Rawls criterion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
  9. Bettina Klaus & Panos Protopapas, 2020. "Solidarity for public goods under single-peaked preferences: characterizing target set correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(3), pages 405-430, October.
  10. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Ricardo Arlegi & Miguel Ballester, 2013. "Uncertainty with ordinal likelihood information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(2), pages 397-425, July.
  11. Lefgren, Lars J. & Stoddard, Olga B. & Stovall, John E., 2021. "Rationalizing self-defeating behaviors: Theory and evidence," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
  12. Guerdjikova, Ani, 2006. "Portfolio Choice and Asset Prices in an Economy Populated by Case-Based Decision Makers," Working Papers 06-13, Cornell University, Center for Analytic Economics.
  13. José Alcantud & Ritxar Arlegi, 2012. "An axiomatic analysis of ranking sets under simple categorization," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 227-245, March.
  14. José Alcantud & Ritxar Arlegi, 2008. "Ranking sets additively in decisional contexts: an axiomatic characterization," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 147-171, March.
  15. Mahmoud, Ola, 2022. "Second-order uncertainty and naive diversification," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
  16. Barton L. Lipman & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2010. "Temptation," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2010-021, Boston University - Department of Economics.
  17. Ritxar Arlegi, 2002. "A Note on Bossert, Pattanaik and Xu’s “Choice Under Complete Uncertainty: Axiomatic Characterization of Some Decision Rules”," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 0202, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
  18. Andreas Darmann & Christian Klamler & Ulrich Pferschy, 2011. "Finding socially best spanning trees," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(4), pages 511-527, April.
  19. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2011. "Rationality, external norms, and the epistemic value of menus," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(4), pages 729-741, October.
  20. Christian Klamler, 2014. "How risky is it to manipulate a scoring rule under incomplete information?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 34(2), pages 1214-1221.
  21. BOSSERT, Walter & SLINKO, Arkadii, 2004. "Relative Uncertainty and Additively Representable Set Rankings," Cahiers de recherche 2004-13, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
  22. Kerber, Manfred & Lange, Christoph & Rowat, Colin, 2016. "An introduction to mechanized reasoning," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 26-39.
  23. Gekker, Ruvin & van Hees, Martin, 2006. "Freedom, opportunity and uncertainty: A logical approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 246-263, September.
  24. Arlegi, Ritxar & Dimitrov, Dinko, 2016. "Power set extensions of dichotomous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 20-29.
  25. Shin Sato, 2008. "On strategy-proof social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 331-343, August.
  26. Murat Sertel & Arkadii Slinko, 2007. "Ranking committees, income streams or multisets," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 30(2), pages 265-287, February.
  27. Arlegi, Ricardo, 2007. "Sequentially consistent rules of choice under complete uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 131-143, July.
  28. Carmen Beviá & Luis Corchón, 2022. "Contests with dominant strategies," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(4), pages 1-19, November.
  29. Amélie Vrijdags, 2010. "An experimental investigation of transitivity in set ranking," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 213-232, February.
  30. Carmelo Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2009. "On strategy-proof social choice correspondences: a comment," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(1), pages 29-35, January.
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.