IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/crb/wpaper/2019-07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Regard sur la ruse en économie

Author

Listed:
  • Marc Deschamps

    (Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté, CRESE)

Abstract

Parce que l'économiste suppose généralement que l'agent économique est rationnel, il est évident que ce dernier cherchera par tous les moyens qui sont à sa disposition à satisfaire au mieux ses intérêts, y compris en utilisant la ruse. L'objet de cet article vise ainsi à éclairer quelques-unes des modalités que peut revêtir la notion de ruse en économie, sans évidemment prétendre en fournir une présentation exhaustive. A cette fin, nous choisissons de distinguer les situations où les agents économiques peuvent utiliser des ruses lorsqu'ils sont en concurrence entre eux (e.g stratégies mixtes en théorie des jeux, stratégies d'augmentation des coûts des concurrents), et celles où ils peuvent utiliser des ruses lorsqu'il s’agit de cas où le collectif est en jeu (e.g manipulation en matière de vote, demande et financement de biens publics).

Suggested Citation

  • Marc Deschamps, 2019. "Regard sur la ruse en économie," Working Papers 2019-07, CRESE.
    • Handle: RePEc:crb:wpaper:2019-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://crese.univ-fcomte.fr/uploads/wp/WP-2019-07.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2019
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Feldman, Allan M, 1979. "Manipulating Voting Procedures," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 17(3), pages 452-474, July.
    2. Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2005. "L'élaboration des normes : un « nouvel » espace de compétition ? Une application à la norme ISO 14001," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 111(1), pages 29-56.
    3. Marc Deschamps, 2010. "La stratégie anticoncurrentielle d'augmentation des coûts des rivaux à travers l'exemple du contrat de travail," Post-Print halshs-00859189, HAL.
    4. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    5. Marc Deschamps, 2009. "Comment affecter les concurrents grâce au Droit? Les stratégies d'augmentation des coûts des rivaux," Post-Print halshs-00859247, HAL.
    6. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Islam, Jamal & Mohajan, Haradhan & Moolio, Pahlaj, 2010. "Methods of voting system and manipulation of voting," MPRA Paper 50854, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 06 May 2010.
    2. Pierre Bernhard & Marc Deschamps, 2018. "Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem," Post-Print hal-01940545, HAL.
    3. Bock, Hans-Hermann & Day, William H. E. & McMorris, F. R., 1998. "Consensus rules for committee elections," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 219-232, May.
    4. Marco LiCalzi, 2022. "Bipartite choices," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 45(2), pages 551-568, December.
    5. John C. McCabe-Dansted & Arkadii Slinko, 2006. "Exploratory Analysis of Similarities Between Social Choice Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 77-107, January.
    6. James Schummer, 1999. "Almost-dominant Strategy Implementation," Discussion Papers 1278, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    7. Aleskerov, Fuad & Karabekyan, Daniel & Sanver, M. Remzi & Yakuba, Vyacheslav, 2012. "On the manipulability of voting rules: The case of 4 and 5 alternatives," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 67-73.
    8. Lirong Xia, 2020. "How Likely Are Large Elections Tied?," Papers 2011.03791, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    9. Dindar, Hayrullah & Lainé, Jean, 2017. "Manipulation of single-winner large elections by vote pairing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 105-107.
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. Souvik Roy & Soumyarup Sadhukhan, 2019. "A characterization of random min–max domains and its applications," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(4), pages 887-906, November.
    13. Mizukami, Hideki & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi & Wakayama, Takuma, 2003. "Strategy-Proof Sharing," Working Papers 1170, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    14. Bruno Frey, 2011. "Tullock challenges: happiness, revolutions, and democracy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 269-281, September.
    15. Donaldson, Jason & Piacentino, Giorgia & Malenko, Nadya, 2017. "Deadlock on the Board," CEPR Discussion Papers 12503, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Takamiya, Koji, 2001. "Coalition strategy-proofness and monotonicity in Shapley-Scarf housing markets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 201-213, March.
    17. Freixas, Josep & Parker, Cameron, 2015. "Manipulation in games with multiple levels of output," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 144-151.
    18. Burak Can & Peter Csoka & Emre Ergin, 2017. "How to choose a non-manipulable delegation?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1713, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    19. Roy, Souvik & Storcken, Ton, 2019. "A characterization of possibility domains in strategic voting," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 46-55.
    20. Picot, Jérémy & Sen, Arunava, 2012. "An extreme point characterization of random strategy-proof social choice functions: The two alternative case," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 49-52.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:crb:wpaper:2019-07. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lauent Kondratuk (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crufcfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.