IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!)

Citations for "On the Testable Implications of Collective Choice Theories"

by Sprumont, Yves

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. Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris & Satoru Takahashi, 2010. "Interdependent Preferences and Strategic Distinguishability," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1772R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Feb 2011.
  2. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont, 2013. "Every Choice Function is Backwards-Induction Rationalizable," Cahiers de recherche 01-2013, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
  3. BOSSERT, Walter & SPRUMONT, Yves, 2000. "Core Retionalizability in Two-Agent Exchange Economies," Cahiers de recherche 2000-09, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
  4. Francoise Forges & Enrico Minelli, 2006. "Afriat’s Theorem for General Budget Sets," CESifo Working Paper Series 1703, CESifo Group Munich.
  5. 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.
  6. Chiappori, Pierre-André & Donni, Olivier, 2006. "Learning from a Piece of Pie: The Empirical Content of Nash Bargaining," IZA Discussion Papers 2128, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  7. BOSSERT, Walter & SPRUMONT, Yves, 2002. "Efficient and Non-Deteriorating Choice," Cahiers de recherche 2002-10, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
  8. Arianna Degan & Antonio Merlo, 2007. "Do Voters Vote Ideologically?, Third Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 08-034, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 01 Aug 2008.
  9. 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.
  10. Thomas DEMUYNCK, 2011. "The computational complexity of rationalizing Pareto optimal choice behavior," Working Papers Department of Economics ces11.13, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business, Department of Economics.
  11. Andrés Carvajal & Rahul Deb & James Fenske & John Quah, 2014. "A nonparametric analysis of multi-product oligopolies," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 57(2), pages 253-277, October.
  12. Andrés Carvajal & John Quah, 2009. "A Nonparametric Analysis of the Cournot Model," Economics Papers 2009-W15, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
  13. Indrajit Ray & Lin Zhou, . "Game Theory Via Revealed Preferences," Discussion Papers 00/15, Department of Economics, University of York.
  14. Carvajal, Andrés & González, Natalia, 2014. "On refutability of the Nash bargaining solution," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 177-186.
  15. 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.
  16. Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock, 2009. "Degrees of Cooperation in Household Consumption Models: A revealed Preference Analysis," Working Papers ECARES 2009-024, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  17. Kfir Eliaz & Michael Richter & Ariel Rubinstein, 2011. "Choosing the two finalists," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 211-219, February.
  18. BOSSERT, Walter & SUZUMURA, Kotaro, 2006. "Non-Deteriorating Choice without Full Transitivity," Cahiers de recherche 2006-13, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
  19. John Duggan & Michel Le Breton, 2014. "Choice-theoretic Solutions for Strategic Form Games," RCER Working Papers 580, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
  20. Sprumont, Yves, 2001. "Paretian Quasi-orders: The Regular Two-Agent Case," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 437-456, December.
  21. Demuynck, Thomas, 2011. "The computational complexity of rationalizing boundedly rational choice behavior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(4-5), pages 425-433.
  22. Lee, SangMok, 2012. "The testable implications of zero-sum games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 39-46.
  23. Andrés Carvajal, 2003. "Testable Restrictions of Nash Equilibrium in Games with Continuous Domains," BORRADORES DE ECONOMIA 003555, BANCO DE LA REPÚBLICA.
  24. Demuynck, Thomas & Lauwers, Luc, 2009. "Nash rationalization of collective choice over lotteries," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 1-15, January.
  25. Kalai, Gil, 2003. "Learnability and rationality of choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 104-117, November.
  26. Robert R. Routledge, 2009. "Testable implications of the Bertrand model," The School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 0918, Economics, The University of Manchester.
  27. Xu, Yongsheng & Zhou, Lin, 2007. "Rationalizability of choice functions by game trees," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 548-556, May.
This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.