IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/mateco/v34y2000i1p27-38.html

A note on ordinally equivalent Pareto surfaces

Author

Listed:
  • Sprumont, Yves

Abstract

Assuming at least three individuals and some regularity conditions, we construct a set S* of Pareto surfaces which is an "ordinal basis" of the set S of all surfaces: every surface in S is ordinally equivalent to some surface in S* and all surfaces in S* are ordinally distinct.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Sprumont, Yves, 2000. "A note on ordinally equivalent Pareto surfaces," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 27-38, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:mateco:v:34:y:2000:i:1:p:27-38
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304-4068(99)00044-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Kibris, Ozgur, 2004. "Egalitarianism in ordinal bargaining: the Shapley-Shubik rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 157-170, October.
    2. Safra, Zvi & Samet, Dov, 2004. "An ordinal solution to bargaining problems with many players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 129-142, January.
    3. Samet, Dov & Safra, Zvi, 2005. "A family of ordinal solutions to bargaining problems with many players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 89-106, January.
    4. Calvo, Emilio & Peters, Hans, 2005. "Bargaining with ordinal and cardinal players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 20-33, July.
    5. Özgür Kıbrıs, 2012. "Nash bargaining in ordinal environments," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 16(4), pages 269-282, December.

    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. Izat B. Baybusinov & Enrico Maria Fenoaltea & Yi-Cheng Zhang, 2022. "Negotiation problem," Papers 2201.12619, arXiv.org.
    2. Lorenzo Bastianello & Marco LiCalzi, 2015. "Target-based solutions for Nash bargaining," Working Papers 5, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    3. Alexis Garapin & Michel Hollard & Stéphane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2000. "L'inefficacité d'une chaîne de monopoles : une étude expérimentale en situation de négociation répétée," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 145(4), pages 1-18.
    4. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & António Osório & Josep E. Peris, 2015. "From Bargaining Solutions to Claims Rules: A Proportional Approach," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, March.
    5. Naeve-Steinweg, Elisabeth, 2002. "Mechanisms supporting the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 25-36, September.
    6. Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2025. "Nash oligarchies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    7. Lorenzo Bastianello & Marco LiCalzi, 2019. "The Probability to Reach an Agreement as a Foundation for Axiomatic Bargaining," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(3), pages 837-865, May.
    8. Geoffroy de Clippel, 2009. "Axiomatic Bargaining on Economic Enviornments with Lott," Working Papers 2009-5, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    9. Aköz, Kemal Kıvanç & Samsonov, Arseniy, 2025. "Information agreements," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    10. Jaume García Segarra & Miguel Ginés Vilar, 2011. "Weighted Proportional Losses Solution," ThE Papers 10/21, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    11. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2022. "The Attraction and Compromise Effects in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2987-3007, April.
    12. Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2025. "A coco theory for cooperative bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    13. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2021. "Step-by-step negotiations and utilitarianism," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(2), pages 433-445, June.
    14. Forgo, F. & Szidarovszky, F., 2003. "On the relation between the Nash bargaining solution and the weighting method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 108-116, May.
    15. Subrato Banerjee, 2020. "Correction to: Effect of reduced opportunities on bargaining outcomes: an experiment with status asymmetries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(3), pages 347-347, October.
    16. Guillaume Rocheteau & Randall Wright & Cathy Zhang, 2018. "Corporate Finance and Monetary Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(4-5), pages 1147-1186, April.
    17. Li, Chunding & Whalley, John, 2014. "China's potential future growth and gains from trade policy bargaining: Some numerical simulation results," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 65-78.
    18. Pita, Cristina & Torregrosa, Ramon J., 2003. "The concavity axiom in bilateral monopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 211-217, August.
    19. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2021. "No individual priorities and the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 855-863, May.
    20. Gomez, Juan Camilo, 2006. "Achieving efficiency with manipulative bargainers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 254-263, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory

    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:mateco:v:34:y:2000:i:1:p:27-38. 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/jmateco .

    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.