IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login

Citations for "Strategy-proof Social Choice Correspondences"

by Barbera, Salvador & Dutta, Bhaskar & Sen, Arunava

For a complete description of this item, click here. For a RSS feed for citations of this item, click here.
as in new window

  1. Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Choosers as extension axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 375-384, October.
  2. KAYI, Cagatay & RAMAEKERS, Eve, . "Characterizations of Pareto-efficient, fair, and strategy-proof allocation rules in queueing problems," CORE Discussion Papers RP -2179, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  3. José Jimeno & Joaquín Pérez & Estefanía García, 2009. "An extension of the Moulin No Show Paradox for voting correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 343-359, September.
  4. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2006. "Nash implementation via hyperfunctions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 607-623, June.
  5. BARBERA, Salvador & BOSSERT, Walter & PATTANAIK, Prasanta K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
  6. Carmelo Rodr?uez-?varez, 2001. "Candidate Stability and Voting Correspondences," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 492.01, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
  7. Shurojit Chatterji & Arunava Sen, 2009. "Tops-Only Domains," Working Papers 06-2009, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.
  8. Burak Can & Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Expected Utility Consistent Extensions of Preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 123-144, August.
  9. John A. Weymark, 2000. "Candidate Stability and Nonbinary Social Choice," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0029, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics, revised Feb 2001.
  10. Marco Mariotti, 2003. "Even Allocations For Generalised Rationing Problems," Working Papers. Serie AD 2003-10, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
  11. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "A characterization of superdictatorial domains for strategy-proof social choice functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 257-260, December.
  12. Donald E. Campbell & Jerry S. Kelly, 2007. "Organ Transplants, Hiring Committees, and Early Rounds of the Kappell Piano Competition," Working Papers 51, Department of Economics, College of William and Mary.
  13. Kutlu, Levent, 2007. "Arrovian aggregation for preferences over sets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 255-258, May.
  14. Priscilla Man & Shino Takayama, 2012. "A Unifying Impossibility Theorem," Discussion Papers Series 448, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
  15. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2008. "How to choose a non-controversial list with k names," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 79-96, June.
  16. Selçuk Özyurt & M. Sanver, 2008. "Strategy-proof resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 89-101, January.
  17. Larsson, Bo & Svensson, Lars-Gunnar, 2006. "Strategy-proof voting on the full preference domain," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 272-287, December.
  18. Marc Vorsatz, 2007. "Approval Voting on Dichotomous Preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 127-141, January.
  19. Salvador Barberà, 2010. "Strategy-proof social choice," Working Papers 420, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
  20. Roberto Serrano, 2003. "The Theory of Implementation of Social Choice Rules," Economics Working Papers 0033, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
  21. Peleg, Bezalel & Peters, Hans, 2009. "Nash consistent representation of effectivity functions through lottery models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 503-515, March.
  22. Sato, Shin, 2013. "A sufficient condition for the equivalence of strategy-proofness and nonmanipulability by preferences adjacent to the sincere one," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 259-278.
  23. Shin Sato, 2008. "On strategy-proof social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 331-343, August.
  24. Wolitzky, Alexander, 2009. "Fully sincere voting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 720-735, November.
  25. Carmelo Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2007. "On the manipulation of social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 175-199, September.
  26. Bochet, Olivier & Sakai, Toyotaka, 2007. "Strategic manipulations of multi-valued solutions in economies with indivisibilities," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 53-68, January.
  27. Eraslan, H.Hulya & McLennan, Andrew, 2004. "Strategic candidacy for multivalued voting procedures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 29-54, July.
  28. Özyurt, Selçuk & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2009. "A general impossibility result on strategy-proof social choice hyperfunctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 880-892, July.
  29. Ján Palguta, 2011. "Voting Experiments: Measuring Vulnerability of Voting Procedures to Manipulation," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 5(3), pages 324-345, November.
  30. Masashi Umezawa, 2009. "Coalitionally strategy-proof social choice correspondences and the Pareto rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 151-158, June.
This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.