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

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. Carvajal, Andrés & González, Natalia, 2014. "On refutability of the Nash bargaining solution," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 177-186.
  2. Carvajal, Andres & Quah, John K.-H., 2009. "A Nonparametric Analysis of the Cournot Model," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 922, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
  3. 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).
  4. Bossert, W. & Sprumont, Y., 2000. "Core Retionalizability in Two-Agent Exchange Economies," Cahiers de recherche 2000-09, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
  5. Forges, Françoise & Minelli, Enrico, 2009. "Afriat's theorem for general budget sets," Economics Papers from University Paris Dauphine 123456789/4099, Paris Dauphine University.
  6. Kfir Eliaz & Michael Richter & Ariel Rubinstein, 2011. "Choosing the two finalists," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 211-219, February.
  7. 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.
  8. Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris & Satoru Takahashi, 2010. "Interdependent Preferences and Strategic Distinguishability," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1772RR, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jul 2014.
  9. BOSSERT, Walter & SUZUMURA, Kotaro, 2006. "Non-Deteriorating Choice without Full Transitivity," Cahiers de recherche 10-2006, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
  10. Echenique, Federico & Ivanov, Lozan, . "Implications of Pareto Efficiency for two-agent (household) choice," Working Papers 1308, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
  11. BOSSERT, Walter & SPRUMONT, Yves, 2002. "Efficient and Non-Deteriorating Choice," Cahiers de recherche 2002-10, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
  12. Ray, Indrajit & Zhou, Lin, 2001. "Game Theory via Revealed Preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 415-424, November.
  13. 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.
  14. Andrés Carvajal, 2004. "Testable Restrictions of Nash Equilibrium in Games with Continuous Domains," Royal Holloway, University of London: Discussion Papers in Economics 04/26, Department of Economics, Royal Holloway University of London, revised Nov 2004.
  15. Sprumont, Yves, 2001. "Paretian Quasi-orders: The Regular Two-Agent Case," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 437-456, December.
  16. Laurens CHERCHYE & Thomas DEMUYNCK & Bram DE ROCK, 2009. "Degrees of cooperation in household consumption models: a revealed preference analysis," Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers ces09.20, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën.
  17. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont, 2013. "Every Choice Function Is Backwards‐Induction Rationalizable," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(6), pages 2521-2534, November.
  18. Pierre-André Chiappori & Olivier Donni, 2005. "Learning From a Piece of Pie: The Empirical Content of Nash Bargaining," THEMA Working Papers 2006-07, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
  19. Xu, Yongsheng & Zhou, Lin, 2007. "Rationalizability of choice functions by game trees," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 548-556, May.
  20. Thomas DEMUYNCK, 2011. "The computational complexity of rationalizing Pareto optimal choice behavior," Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers ces11.13, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën.
  21. 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.
  22. Kalai, Gil, 2003. "Learnability and rationality of choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 104-117, November.
  23. Lee, SangMok, 2012. "The testable implications of zero-sum games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 39-46.
  24. Andrés Carvajal & Rahul Deb & James Fenske & John Quah, 2014. "A nonparametric analysis of multi-product oligopolies," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 253-277, October.
  25. Demuynck, Thomas, 2011. "The computational complexity of rationalizing boundedly rational choice behavior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(4-5), pages 425-433.
  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. Demuynck, Thomas & Lauwers, Luc, 2009. "Nash rationalization of collective choice over lotteries," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 1-15, January.
This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.