IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/spr/sochwe/v19y2002i3p569-580.html

Multi-valued strategy-proof social choice rules

Citations

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


Cited by:

  1. José Jimeno & Joaquín Pérez & Estefanía García, 2009. "An extension of the Moulin No Show Paradox for voting correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(3), pages 343-359, September.
  2. Brandt, Felix & Lederer, Patrick, 2023. "Characterizing the top cycle via strategyproofness," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), May.
  3. Aziz, Haris & Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix, 2015. "Universal Pareto dominance and welfare for plausible utility functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 123-133.
  4. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
  5. Amílcar Mata Díaz & Ramón Pino Pérez & Jahn Franklin Leal, 2023. "Taxonomy of powerful voters and manipulation in the framework of social choice functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(2), pages 277-309, August.
  6. Brandt, Felix & Saile, Christian & Stricker, Christian, 2022. "Strategyproof social choice when preferences and outcomes may contain ties," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
  7. Bochet, Olivier & Sakai, Toyotaka, 2007. "Strategic manipulations of multi-valued solutions in economies with indivisibilities," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 53-68, January.
  8. Toshiya Yoshimura, 2026. "Coalitional Manipulation and Target Set Correspondences," Papers 2608.18739, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2026.
  9. Eraslan, H.Hulya & McLennan, Andrew, 2004. "Strategic candidacy for multivalued voting procedures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 29-54, July.
  10. Burak Can & Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Expected Utility Consistent Extensions of Preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 123-144, August.
  11. Carmelo Rodríguez à lvarez, 2025. "Strategy-Proof Social Choice Correspondences for Conditional Expected Utility Maximizers," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2025-07, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico.
  12. Yao, Haixiang & Yi, Jianxin, 2008. "A characterization of dictatorial social choice correspondences with continuous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 299-304, May.
  13. Shin Sato, 2008. "On strategy-proof social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 331-343, August.
  14. Priscilla Man & Shino Takayama, 2013. "A unifying impossibility theorem," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(2), pages 249-271, October.
  15. Ville Korpela, 2023. "Irresolute mechanism design: a new path to possibility," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(4), pages 993-1007, December.
  16. Felix Brandt, 2015. "Set-monotonicity implies Kelly-strategyproofness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 793-804, December.
  17. Alexander Reffgen, 2011. "Generalizing the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem: partial preferences, the degree of manipulation, and multi-valuedness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(1), pages 39-59, June.
  18. Christian Basteck, 2022. "Characterising scoring rules by their solution in iteratively undominated strategies," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(1), pages 161-208, July.
  19. Roberto Serrano, 2003. "The Theory of Implementation of Social Choice Rules," Working Papers 2003-19, Brown University, Department of Economics.
  20. Raffaele Berzi & Daniela Bubboloni & Michele Gori, 2025. "Manipulation of social choice correspondences under incomplete information," Papers 2503.23141, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2025.
  21. Marc Vorsatz, 2007. "Approval Voting on Dichotomous Preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(1), pages 127-141, January.
  22. Carmelo Rodríguez-à lvarez, 2017. "On single-peakedness and strategy-proofness: ties between adjacent alternatives," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(3), pages 1966-1974.
  23. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2012. "Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 371-398, July.
  24. Yasuhito Tanaka, 2001. "Generalized monotonicity and strategy-proofness for non-resolute social choice correspondences," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(12), pages 1-8.
  25. Hayrullah Dindar & Jean Lainé, 2023. "Vote swapping in irresolute two-tier voting procedures," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(2), pages 221-262, August.
  26. Masashi Umezawa, 2009. "Coalitionally strategy-proof social choice correspondences and the Pareto rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 151-158, June.
  27. Donald E. Campbell & Jerry S. Kelly, 2007. "Organ Transplants, Hiring Committees, and Early Rounds of the Kappell Piano Competition," Working Papers 51, Economics Department, William & Mary.
  28. Mihir Bhattacharya & Ojasvi Khare, 2024. "Strategy-proof interval-social choice correspondences over extended single-peaked domains," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 53(3), pages 893-911, September.
  29. Shin Sato, 2014. "A fundamental structure of strategy-proof social choice correspondences with restricted preferences over alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(4), pages 831-851, April.
  30. Satoshi Nakada & Toshiya Yoshimura, 2026. "Peak-Robust Voting Rules," Papers 2606.25798, arXiv.org.
  31. Felix Brandt & Martin Bullinger & Patrick Lederer, 2021. "On the Indecisiveness of Kelly-Strategyproof Social Choice Functions," Papers 2102.00499, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.
  32. Özyurt, Selçuk & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2009. "A general impossibility result on strategy-proof social choice hyperfunctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 880-892, July.
  33. Aziz, Haris & Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Brill, Markus, 2018. "On the tradeoff between efficiency and strategyproofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 1-18.
  34. Thomson, William, 2024. "On the manipulability of allocation rules through endowment augmentation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 91-104.
  35. Selçuk Özyurt & M. Sanver, 2008. "Strategy-proof resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(1), pages 89-101, January.
  36. William Thomson, 2009. "Borrowing-proofness," RCER Working Papers 545, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
  37. Shurojit Chatterji & Arunava Sen, 2011. "Tops-only domains," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 255-282, February.
  38. Korpela Ville, 2016. "Social Choice Theory: A Neglected Path to Possibility," Discussion Papers 110, Aboa Centre for Economics.
  39. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer, 2021. "Characterizing the Top Cycle via Strategyproofness," Papers 2108.04622, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
  40. Larsson, Bo & Svensson, Lars-Gunnar, 2006. "Strategy-proof voting on the full preference domain," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 272-287, December.
  41. Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Choosers as extension axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 375-384, October.
  42. KayI, Çagatay & Ramaekers, Eve, 2010. "Characterizations of Pareto-efficient, fair, and strategy-proof allocation rules in queueing problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 220-232, January.
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.