IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/eee/jetheo/v93y2000i2p205-232.html

On the Testable Implications of Collective Choice Theories

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as


Cited by:

  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. Donni, Olivier & Molina, José Alberto, 2018. "Household Collective Models: Three Decades of Theoretical Contributions and Empirical Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 11915, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
  4. Lee, SangMok, 2012. "The testable implications of zero-sum games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 39-46.
  5. Carvajal, Andrés & González, Natalia, 2014. "On refutability of the Nash bargaining solution," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 177-186.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Li, Jiangtao & Tang, Rui, 2017. "Every random choice rule is backwards-induction rationalizable," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 563-567.
  9. 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.
  10. Bergemann, Dirk & Morris, Stephen & Takahashi, Satoru, 2017. "Interdependent preferences and strategic distinguishability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 329-371.
  11. Sprumont, Yves, 2001. "Paretian Quasi-orders: The Regular Two-Agent Case," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 437-456, December.
  12. João V. Ferreira & Nicolas Gravel, 2017. "Choice with Time," AMSE Working Papers 1729, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
  13. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont, 2013. "Every Choice Function Is Backwards‐Induction Rationalizable," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(6), pages 2521-2534, November.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Robert R. Routledge, 2009. "Testable implications of the Bertrand model," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0918, Economics, The University of Manchester.
  17. Cherchye, L.J.H. & Demuynck, T. & de Rock, B., 2009. "Degrees of Cooperation in Household Consumption Models : A Revealed Preference Analysis," Other publications TiSEM 097597d5-7724-4d31-b044-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Freer, Mikhail & Martinelli, César, 2021. "A utility representation theorem for general revealed preference," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 68-76.
  21. , & ,, 2012. "Reason-based choice: a bargaining rationale for the attraction and compromise effects," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 7(1), January.
  22. Ray, Indrajit & Zhou, Lin, 2001. "Game Theory via Revealed Preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 415-424, November.
  23. Andrés Carvajal, 2003. "Testable Restrictions of Nash Equilibrium in Games with Continuous Domains," Borradores de Economia 229, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
  24. Anis Hoayek & Hassan Hamie & Hans Auer, 2020. "Modeling the Price Stability and Predictability of Post Liberalized Gas Markets Using the Theory of Information," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, June.
  25. Laurens Cherchye & Sam Cosaert & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock, 2020. "Group Consumption with Caring Individuals," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(627), pages 587-622.
  26. 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.
  27. Carvajal, Andres & Quah, John K.-H., "undated". "A Nonparametric Analysis of the Cournot Model," Economic Research Papers 271186, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
  28. Nishimura, Hiroki, 2021. "Revealed preferences of individual players in sequential games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
  29. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont, 2002. "Core rationalizability in two-agent exchange economies," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(4), pages 777-791.
  30. 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.
  31. BOSSERT, Walter & SUZUMURA, Kotaro, 2006. "Non-Deteriorating Choice without Full Transitivity," Cahiers de recherche 10-2006, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
  32. Lee, Byung Soo & Stewart, Colin, 2016. "Identification of payoffs in repeated games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 82-88.
  33. Demuynck, Thomas & Lauwers, Luc, 2009. "Nash rationalization of collective choice over lotteries," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 1-15, January.
  34. Demuynck, Thomas, 2011. "The computational complexity of rationalizing boundedly rational choice behavior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(4-5), pages 425-433.
  35. Forges, Françoise & Minelli, Enrico, 2009. "Afriat's theorem for general budget sets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 135-145, January.
  36. Bossert, Walter & Sprumont, Yves, 2003. "Efficient and non-deteriorating choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 131-142, April.
  37. Carvajal, Andrés, 2024. "Recent advances on testability in economic equilibrium models," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
  38. Anis Hoayek & Hassan Hamie & Hans Auer, 2020. "Modeling the Price Stability and Predictability of Post Liberalized Gas Markets Using the Theory of Information," Post-Print emse-03604655, HAL.
  39. Christopher P. Chambers & Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Christopher Turansick, 2025. "Revealed Social Networks," Papers 2501.02609, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2025.
  40. 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).
  41. Rehbeck, John, 2018. "Note on unique Nash equilibrium in continuous games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 216-225.
  42. 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.
  43. Castillo, Marco E. & Cross, Philip J. & Freer, Mikhail, 2019. "Nonparametric utility theory in strategic settings: Revealing preferences and beliefs from proposal–response games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 60-82.
  44. Federico Echenique, 2008. "What Matchings Can Be Stable? The Testable Implications of Matching Theory," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 757-768, August.
  45. Galambos, Adam, 2019. "Descriptive complexity and revealed preference theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 54-64.
  46. Geoffroy Clippel & Kareen Rozen, 2023. "Empirical content of classic assignment methods: jungle and market economy," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(3), pages 813-825, October.
  47. Cherepanov, Vadim & Feddersen, Timothy & ,, 2013. "Rationalization," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(3), September.
  48. Hassan Hamie & Anis Hoayek & Hans Auer, 2020. "Modeling Post-Liberalized European Gas Market Concentration—A Game Theory Perspective," Forecasting, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-16, December.
  49. Rehbeck, John, 2014. "Every choice correspondence is backwards-induction rationalizable," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 207-210.
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.