Collectively Ranking Candidates - An Axiomatic Approach -
Different evaluators typically disagree how to rank different candidates since they care more or less for the various qualities of the candidates. It is assumed that all evaluators submit vector bids assigning a monetary bid for each possible rank order. The rules must specify for all possible vectors of such vector bids the collectively binding rank order of candidates and the "payments" for this bid vector and its implied rank order. Three axioms uniquely define the "procedurally fair" ranking rules. We finally discuss how our approach can be adjusted to situations where one wants to rank only acceptable candidates.
|Date of creation:||07 Apr 2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Carl-Zeiss-Strasse 3, 07743 JENA|
Phone: +049 3641/ 9 43000
Fax: +049 3641/ 9 43000
Web page: http://www.jenecon.de
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Guth, Werner & Peleg, Bezalel, 1996.
"On ring formation in auctions,"
Mathematical Social Sciences,
Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 1-37, August.
- Werner Güth & Hartmut Kliemt, 2011. "Procedurally Fair Provision of Public Projects An axiomatic characterization," Jena Economic Research Papers 2011-016, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2011-020. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Markus Pasche)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.