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. Kalai, Gil, 2003. "Learnability and rationality of choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 104-117, November.
  2. Xu, Yongsheng & Zhou, Lin, 2007. "Rationalizability of choice functions by game trees," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 548-556, May.
  3. Lee, SangMok, 2012. "The testable implications of zero-sum games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 39-46.
  4. Carvajal, Andrés & González, Natalia, 2014. "On refutability of the Nash bargaining solution," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 177-186.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris & Satoru Takahashi, 2010. "Interdependent Preferences and Strategic Distinguishability," Levine's Working Paper Archive 661465000000000273, David K. Levine.
  8. 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.
  9. Sprumont, Yves, 2001. "Paretian Quasi-orders: The Regular Two-Agent Case," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 437-456, December.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Robert R. Routledge, 2009. "Testable implications of the Bertrand model," The School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 0918, Economics, The University of Manchester.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Andrés Carvajal & John Quah, 2009. "A Nonparametric Analysis of the Cournot Model," Economics Papers 2009-W15, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
  16. Pierre-André Chiappori & Olivier Donni, 2006. "Learning from a Piece of Pie: the Empirical Content of Nash Bargaining," Cahiers de recherche 0619, CIRPEE.
  17. Ray, Indrajit & Zhou, Lin, 2001. "Game Theory via Revealed Preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 415-424, November.
  18. Andrés Carvajal, 2003. "Testable Restrictions of Nash Equilibrium in Games with Continuous Domains," BORRADORES DE ECONOMIA 003555, BANCO DE LA REPÚBLICA.
  19. BOSSERT, Walter & SPRUMONT, Yves, 2002. "Efficient and Non-Deteriorating Choice," Cahiers de recherche 2002-10, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
  20. 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.
  21. BOSSERT, Walter & SUZUMURA, Kotaro, 2006. "Non-Deteriorating Choice without Full Transitivity," Cahiers de recherche 10-2006, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
  22. 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.
  23. Lee, Byung Soo & Stewart, Colin, 2016. "Identification of payoffs in repeated games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 82-88.
  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. 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. Francoise Forges & Enrico Minelli, 2006. "Afriat's Theorem for General Budget Sets," Working Papers ubs0609, University of Brescia, Department of Economics.
  27. 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).
  28. 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.
  29. Rehbeck, John, 2014. "Every choice correspondence is backwards-induction rationalizable," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 207-210.
This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.