Paretian Quasi-orders: The Regular Two-Agent Case

Citations

Cited by:

1. Vicki Knoblauch, 2003. "Continuous Paretian Preferences," Working papers 2003-29, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
2. 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.
   • Echenique, Federico & Ivanov, Lozan, "undated". "Implications of Pareto Efficiency for two-agent (household) choice," Working Papers 1308, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
3. 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.
   • Susan Snyder & Indrajit Ray, 2004. "Observable implications of Nash and subgame-perfect behavior in extensive games," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 407, Econometric Society.
   • Indrajit Ray & Susan Snyder, 2013. "Observable Implications of Nash and Subgame- Perfect Behavior in Extensive Games," Discussion Papers 04-14r, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
4. 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.
   • Susan Snyder & Indrajit Ray, 2004. "Observable implications of Nash and subgame-perfect behavior in extensive games," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 407, Econometric Society.
   • Indrajit Ray & Susan Snyder, 2004. "Observable Implications of Nash and Subgame-Perfect Behavior in Extensive Games," Discussion Papers 04-14, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham, revised Apr 2013.
   • Indrajit Ray & Susan Snyder, 2013. "Observable Implications of Nash and Subgame- Perfect Behavior in Extensive Games," Discussion Papers 13-15, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
5. Candeal, Juan C., 2022. "Bi-utility representable orderings on a countable set," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
6. 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.
   • Indra Ray & Susan Snyder, 2003. "Observable Implications of Nash and Subgame-Perfect Behavior in Extensive Games," Working Papers 2003-02, Brown University, Department of Economics.
   • Indrajit Ray & Susan Snyder, 2013. "Observable Implications of Nash and Subgame- Perfect Behavior in Extensive Games," Discussion Papers 04-14r, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
   • Susan Snyder & Indrajit Ray, 2004. "Observable implications of Nash and subgame-perfect behavior in extensive games," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 407, Econometric Society.
7. Candeal, Juan C., 2024. "Finite multi-utility representable preferences and Pareto orderings," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
8. Bossert, Walter & Sprumont, Yves, 2003. "Efficient and non-deteriorating choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 131-142, April.
   • BOSSERT, Walter & SPRUMONT, Yves, 2002. "Efficient and Non-Deteriorating Choice," Cahiers de recherche 2002-10, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
9. Pivato, Marcus, 2013. "Multiutility representations for incomplete difference preorders," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 196-220.
   • Pivato, Marcus, 2012. "Multiutility representations for incomplete difference preorders," MPRA Paper 41182, University Library of Munich, Germany.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. BOSSERT, Walter & SUZUMURA, Kotaro, 2006. "Non-Deteriorating Choice without Full Transitivity," Cahiers de recherche 10-2006, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    • BOSSERT, Walter & SUZUMURA, Kotaro, 2006. "Non-Deteriorating Choice without Full Transitivity," Cahiers de recherche 2006-13, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
13. Chambers, Christopher P. & Echenique, Federico & Shmaya, Eran, 2017. "General revealed preference theory," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), May.
14. Vicki Knoblauch, 2009. "Topologies Defined by Binary Relations," Working papers 2009-28, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics, revised Dec 2009.
15. Carvajal, Andrés, 2024. "Recent advances on testability in economic equilibrium models," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
16. Vicki Knoblauch, 2008. "Binary Relations: Finite Characterizations and Computational Complexity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 27-44, August.
17. 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.
18. Demuynck, Thomas, 2011. "The computational complexity of rationalizing boundedly rational choice behavior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(4-5), pages 425-433.
    • Thomas Demuynck, 2011. "The computational complexity of rationalizing boundedly rational choice behavior," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/252242, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
19. 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.
    • Thomas DEMUYNCK, 2011. "The computational complexity of rationalizing Pareto optimal choice behavior," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven ces11.13, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    • Thomas Demuynck, 2014. "The computational complexity of rationalizing Pareto optimal choice behavior," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/251999, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
20. T. Demuynck, 2006. "Existence of closed and complete extensions applied to convex, homothetic an monotonic orderings," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 06/407, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
21. Voorneveld, Mark, 2002. "Characterization of Pareto Dominance," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 487, Stockholm School of Economics.
22. Kaminski, B., 2007. "On quasi-orderings and multi-objective functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1591-1598, March.
23. Arlegi, Ricardo & Teschl, Miriam, 2022. "Pareto rationalizability by two single-peaked preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-11.
24. Qi, Shaofang, 2015. "Paretian partial orders: The two-agent case," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 38-48.
25. Vicki Knoblauch, 2005. "Finite Characterizations and Paretian Preferences," Working papers 2005-02, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
26. Vicki Knoblauch, 2006. "Continuously Representable Paretian Quasi-Orders," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 1-16, February.
27. 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.
    • Vicki Knoblauch, 2003. "Characterizing Paretian Preferences," Working papers 2003-30, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.