IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/mateco/v57y2015icp38-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Paretian partial orders: The two-agent case

Author

Listed:
  • Qi, Shaofang

Abstract

We use two independent conditions to characterize when (the asymmetric part of) a partial order on a finite set of options can be represented as the Pareto dominance relation of a two-agent preference profile.

Suggested Citation

  • Qi, Shaofang, 2015. "Paretian partial orders: The two-agent case," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 38-48.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:mateco:v:57:y:2015:i:c:p:38-48
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jmateco.2015.01.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304406815000142
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jmateco.2015.01.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Echenique, Federico & Ivanov, Lozan, 2011. "Implications of Pareto efficiency for two-agent (household) choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 129-136, March.
    2. Sprumont, Yves, 2001. "Paretian Quasi-orders: The Regular Two-Agent Case," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 437-456, December.
    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. Candeal, Juan C., 2022. "Bi-utility representable orderings on a countable set," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    2. Shaofang Qi, 2016. "A characterization of the n-agent Pareto dominance relation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(3), pages 695-706, March.
    3. Arlegi, Ricardo & Teschl, Miriam, 2022. "Pareto rationalizability by two single-peaked preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-11.

    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. Thomas Demuynck, 2014. "The computational complexity of rationalizing Pareto optimal choice behavior," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(3), pages 529-549, March.
    2. Shaofang Qi, 2016. "A characterization of the n-agent Pareto dominance relation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(3), pages 695-706, March.
    3. Jerry S. Kelly & Shaofang Qi, 2016. "A conjecture on the construction of orderings by Borda’s rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(1), pages 113-125, June.
    4. Arlegi, Ricardo & Teschl, Miriam, 2022. "Pareto rationalizability by two single-peaked preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-11.
    5. BOSSERT, Walter & SUZUMURA, Kotaro, 2006. "Non-Deteriorating Choice without Full Transitivity," Cahiers de recherche 10-2006, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    6. Carvajal, Andres & Ray, Indrajit & Snyder, Susan, 2004. "Equilibrium behavior in markets and games: testable restrictions and identification," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1-2), pages 1-40, February.
    7. Voorneveld, Mark, 2002. "Characterization of Pareto Dominance," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 487, Stockholm School of Economics.
    8. Chambers, Christopher P. & Echenique, Federico & Shmaya, Eran, 2017. "General revealed preference theory," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), May.
    9. Pivato, Marcus, 2013. "Multiutility representations for incomplete difference preorders," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 196-220.
    10. Sam Cosaert & Thomas Demuynck, 2015. "Revealed preference theory for finite choice sets," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 59(1), pages 169-200, May.
    11. Kaminski, B., 2007. "On quasi-orderings and multi-objective functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1591-1598, March.
    12. Demuynck, Thomas, 2011. "The computational complexity of rationalizing boundedly rational choice behavior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(4-5), pages 425-433.
    13. Vicki Knoblauch, 2005. "Characterizing Paretian preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 25(1), pages 179-186, October.
    14. Ray, Indrajit & Snyder, Susan, 2013. "Observable implications of Nash and subgame-perfect behavior in extensive games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 471-477.
    15. Ray, Indrajit & Snyder, Susan, 2013. "Observable implications of Nash and subgame-perfect behavior in extensive games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 471-477.
    16. Bossert, Walter & Sprumont, Yves, 2003. "Efficient and non-deteriorating choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 131-142, April.
    17. Vicki Knoblauch, 2006. "Continuously Representable Paretian Quasi-Orders," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 1-16, February.
    18. Vicki Knoblauch, 2008. "Binary Relations: Finite Characterizations and Computational Complexity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 27-44, August.
    19. Ray, Indrajit & Snyder, Susan, 2013. "Observable implications of Nash and subgame-perfect behavior in extensive games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 471-477.
    20. Echenique, Federico & Ivanov, Lozan, 2011. "Implications of Pareto efficiency for two-agent (household) choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 129-136, March.

    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:57:y:2015:i:c:p:38-48. 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.