IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v37y2001i1p196-215.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Manipulation of Preferences and Relative Utilitarianism

Author

Listed:
  • Sobel, Joel

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Sobel, Joel, 2001. "Manipulation of Preferences and Relative Utilitarianism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 196-215, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:37:y:2001:i:1:p:196-215
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899-8256(00)90839-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amrita Dhillon & Jean-Francois Mertens, 1999. "Relative Utilitarianism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 471-498, May.
    2. Edi Karni, 1998. "Impartiality: Definition and Representation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(6), pages 1405-1416, November.
    3. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    4. Sobel, Joel, 1981. "Distortion of Utilities and the Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(3), pages 597-619, May.
    5. Thomson, William, 1994. "Cooperative models of bargaining," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 35, pages 1237-1284, Elsevier.
    6. Safran, William, 1996. "Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Identity: Cross-National and Comparative Perspectives. Edited by Russell F. Farnen. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1994. 538p. $49.95," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(3), pages 670-670, September.
    7. Crawford, Vincent P. & Varian, Hal R., 1979. "Distortion of preferences and the Nash theory of bargaining," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 203-206.
    8. Kurz, Mordecai, 1977. "Distortion of preferences, income distribution, and the case for a linear income tax," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 291-298, April.
    9. William Thomson, 1984. "The Manipulability of Resource Allocation Mechanisms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 51(3), pages 447-460.
    10. Uzi Segal, 2000. "Let's Agree That All Dictatorships Are Equally Bad," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(3), pages 569-589, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    2. Velez, Rodrigo A., 2011. "Are incentives against economic justice?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 326-345, January.
    3. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2023. "The Nash bargaining solution: sometimes more utilitarian, sometimes more egalitarian," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(3), pages 457-464, October.
    4. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2016. "Egalitarian–utilitarian bounds in Nash’s bargaining problem," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 427-442, March.
    5. Rudolf Vetschera, 2005. "Strategic Manipulation of Preference Information in Multi-Criteria Group Decision Methods," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 393-414, September.
    6. Fujinaka, Yuji & Wakayama, Takuma, 2015. "Maximal manipulation of envy-free solutions in economies with indivisible goods and money," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PA), pages 165-185.
    7. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2015. "The Nash solution is more utilitarian than egalitarian," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 463-478, November.
    8. Gomez, Juan Camilo, 2006. "Achieving efficiency with manipulative bargainers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 254-263, November.
    9. Baucells, Manel & Shapley, Lloyd S., 2008. "Multiperson utility," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 329-347, March.
    10. Marcus Pivato, 2009. "Twofold optimality of the relative utilitarian bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(1), pages 79-92, January.
    11. Pivato, Marcus, 2006. "Approximate implementation of Relative Utilitarianism via Groves-Clarke pivotal voting with virtual money," MPRA Paper 627, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Claus-Jochen Haake & Cheng-Zhong Qin, 2018. "On unification of solutions to the bargaining problem," Working Papers CIE 113, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    13. Miyagawa, Eiichi, 2002. "Subgame-perfect implementation of bargaining solutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 292-308, November.
    14. Kobberling, Veronika & Peters, Hans, 2003. "The effect of decision weights in bargaining problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 154-175, May.
    15. Velez, Rodrigo A. & Thomson, William, 2012. "Let them cheat!," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 948-963.
    16. Chatterjee, Indradeb & Macdonald, Angus S. & Tapadar, Pradip & Thomas, R. Guy, 2021. "When is utilitarian welfare higher under insurance risk pooling?," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(PB), pages 289-301.
    17. Barry Nalebuff, 2021. "A Perspective-Invariant Approach to Nash Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 577-593, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gomez, Juan Camilo, 2006. "Achieving efficiency with manipulative bargainers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 254-263, November.
    2. Claus-Jochen Haake & Cheng-Zhong Qin, 2018. "On unification of solutions to the bargaining problem," Working Papers CIE 113, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    3. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    4. Kibris, Ozgur, 2002. "Misrepresentation of Utilities in Bargaining: Pure Exchange and Public Good Economies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 91-110, April.
    5. Sherrill Shaffer, 2011. "Strategic risk aversion," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(13), pages 949-956.
    6. Sprumont, Yves, 2018. "Belief-weighted Nash aggregation of Savage preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 222-245.
    7. Yves Sprumont, 2013. "On relative egalitarianism," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 1015-1032, April.
    8. Marcus Pivato, 2009. "Twofold optimality of the relative utilitarian bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(1), pages 79-92, January.
    9. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2016. "Egalitarian–utilitarian bounds in Nash’s bargaining problem," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 427-442, March.
    10. Yves Sprumont, 2020. "Nash welfarism and the distributive implications of informational constraints," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 8(1), pages 49-64, April.
    11. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2015. "The Nash solution is more utilitarian than egalitarian," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 463-478, November.
    12. Izat B. Baybusinov & Enrico Maria Fenoaltea & Yi-Cheng Zhang, 2022. "Negotiation problem," Papers 2201.12619, arXiv.org.
    13. Juan Moreno-Ternero & John E. Roemer, 2004. "Impartiality and Priority. Part 1: The Veil of Ignorance," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1477A, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised May 2005.
    14. Segal, Uzi & Sobel, Joel, 2002. "Min, Max, and Sum," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 126-150, September.
    15. Thibault Gajdos & Feriel Kandil, 2008. "The ignorant observer," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 193-232, August.
    16. Kobberling, Veronika & Peters, Hans, 2003. "The effect of decision weights in bargaining problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 154-175, May.
    17. Florian Brandl, 2020. "Belief-Averaged Relative Utilitarianism," Papers 2005.03693, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    18. Al-Najjar, Nabil I. & Pomatto, Luciano, 2020. "Aggregate risk and the Pareto principle," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    19. Segendorff, Bjorn, 1998. "Delegation and Threat in Bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 266-283, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:37:y:2001:i:1:p:196-215. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.