Strategy-proof assignment on the full preference domain

We consider the problem of efficiently allocating several indivisible objects between agents who are to receive at most one object and whose preferences are private information. We examine this standard “assignment” problem from the perspective of mechanism design giving up the usual assumption of linear preferences and instead using a full preference domain (with indifferences permitted). We characterize two classes of mechanisms: (i) Bi-polar Serially Dictatorial Rules by Essential Single-Valuedness, Pareto Indifference, Strategy-Proofness and Non-Bossiness; and (ii) all selections from Bi-polar Serially Dictatorial Rules by Single-Valuedness, Efficiency, Strategy-Proofness and Weak Non-Bossiness. We compare the outcomes from the (Bi-polar) Serially Dictatorial Rules with the outcomes obtained using a market based approach, namely the “core” of the market. We show that all strongly efficient outcomes in the core can be generated using Serially Dictatorial Rules. Moreover, we argue that Serially Dictatorial Rules have an advantage over the market based approach in that they yield strongly efficient solutions for all preference profiles, making it possible to use randomization to restore equity. When preferences are private information, this type of ex ante equity cannot be implemented using the market based approach.     

What is an ‘endogenous state space’?

Summary. In the literature on choice under unforeseen contingencies, the decision maker behaves as if she aggregates possible instances of future rankings indexed by a set S. The set S is interpreted as a subjective state space even though subsequent rankings need not conform to any one of the aggregated utilities. This paper proposes a definition for a subjective state space under unforeseen contingencies that is topologically unique, derives its existence from preference primitives as opposed to the representation of preferences, and does not commit to an interpretation in which states correspond to future realized rankings. The definition topologically concurs with and extends the identification of the essentially unique subjective state space due to Dekel, Lipman and Rustichini [4].Received: 28 October 2003, Revised: 13 October 2004, JEL Classification Numbers: D11, D81, D91.I thank Eddie Dekel, Alan Kraus, Bart Lipman, Chris Shannon, and the referee for some helpful remarks.     

Preference purification and the inner rational agent: a critique of the conventional wisdom of behavioural welfare economics

Neoclassical economics assumes that individuals have stable and context-independent preferences, and uses preference satisfaction as a normative criterion. By calling this assumption into question, behavioural findings cause fundamental problems for normative economics. A common response to these problems is to treat deviations from conventional rational choice theory as mistakes, and to try to reconstruct the preferences that individuals would have acted on, had they reasoned correctly. We argue that this preference purification approach implicitly uses a dualistic model of the human being, in which an inner rational agent is trapped in an outer psychological shell. This model is psychologically and philosophically problematic.     

The geometry of distributional preferences and a non-parametric identification approach: The Equality Equivalence Test

This paper proposes a geometric delineation of distributional preference types and a non-parametric approach for their identification in a two-person context. It starts with a small set of assumptions on preferences and shows that this set (i) naturally results in a taxonomy of distributional archetypes that nests all empirically relevant types considered in previous work; and (ii) gives rise to a clean experimental identification procedure – the Equality Equivalence Test – that discriminates between archetypes according to core features of preferences rather than properties of specific modeling variants. As a by-product the test yields a two-dimensional index of preference intensity.     

Coalitional manipulation and the Pareto rule

This paper examines aggregation procedures that map profiles of individual preferences into choice sets. An aggregation procedure is said to be “manipulable by a coalition” if there is a group of individuals, and a preference profile, such that every member of the group prefers the choice set obtained when they are misrepresenting their preferences, to the one obtained when they are honest. We show that the Pareto rule, which is an aggregation procedure that maps profiles of individual preferences into corresponding sets of Pareto optima, is not manipulable by any coalition of individuals under various behavioural assumptions which relate preferences over choice sets to preferences over alternatives. The non-manipulability of the Pareto rule by a single individual follows as a special case under these behavioural assumptions.     

Resolving distributional conflicts between generations

Summary. We describe a new approach to the problem of resolving distributional conflicts between an infinite and countable number of generations. We impose conditions on the social preferences that capture the following idea: If preference (or indifference) holds between truncated paths for infinitely many truncating times, then preference (or indifference) holds also between the untruncated infinite paths. In this framework we use such conditions to (1) characterize different versions of leximin and utilitarianism by means of equity conditions well-known from the finite setting, and (2) illustrate the problem of combining Strong Pareto and impartiality in an intergenerational setting.Received: 8 May 2002, Revised: 12 June 2003, JEL Classification Numbers: D63, Q01.Correspondence to: Geir B. AsheimWe thank Kaushik Basu, Marc Fleurbaey, David Miller, Tapan Mitra, Lars-Gunnar Svensson, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments. Asheim gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of the Stanford University research initiative on the Environment, the Economy and Sustainable Welfare, and financial support from the Hewlett Foundation through this research initiative.     

Technical change and employment under imperfect competition with perfect and imperfect information

We consider the implications of process innovation for the aggregate level of employment of assuming that not all firms adopt new technologies simultaneously and that non-innovators adopt (temporarily)disequilibrium strategies (due to imperfect information about the introduction of the new technology). Two alternative scenarios are explored. In one, consumers' demands arise from symmetric homothetic preferences, and in the other from asymmetric (Hotelling-type) preferences. We find that there may be a reduction in employment in the transition to the new equilibrium under both types of preferences even if there is no decrease (or an increase) in the new (long-run) equilibrium level of employment. The conditions under which this will occur are however different for the alternative preference structures. Further, the latter are shown to have different implications for theequilibrium effects of process innovation.     

Diversification, convex preferences and non-empty core in the Choquet expected utility model

Summary. We show, in the Choquet expected utility model, that preference for diversification, that is, convex preferences, is equivalent to a concave utility index and a convex capacity. We then introduce a weaker notion of diversification, namely “sure diversification.” We show that this implies that the core of the capacity is non-empty. The converse holds under concavity of the utility index, which is itself equivalent to the notion of comonotone diversification, that we introduce. In an Anscombe-Aumann setting, preference for diversification is equivalent to convexity of the capacity and preference for sure diversification is equivalent to non-empty core. In the expected utility model, all these notions of diversification are equivalent and are represented by the concavity of the utility index. Received: July 27, 1999; revised version: November 7, 2000     

A theory of (relative) discounting

We derive a representation theorem for time preferences (on the prize-time space) which identifies a novel notion of relative discounting as the key ingredient. This representation covers a variety of time preference models, including the standard exponential and hyperbolic discounting models and certain non-transitive time preferences, such as the similarity-based and subadditive discounting models. Our axiomatic work thus unifies a number of seemingly disparate time preference structures, thereby providing a tractable mathematical format that allows for investigating certain economic environments without subscribing to a particular time preference model. This point is illustrated by means of an application to sequential bargaining theory.     

Paths to stability for matching markets with couples

We study two-sided matching markets with couples and show that for a natural preference domain for couples, the domain of weakly responsive preferences, stable outcomes can always be reached by means of decentralized decision making. Starting from an arbitrary matching, we construct a path of matchings obtained from ‘satisfying’ blocking coalitions that yields a stable matching. Hence, we establish a generalization of Roth and Vande Vate's [Roth, A.E., Vande Vate, J.H., 1990. Random paths to stability in two-sided matching. Econometrica 58, 1475–1480] result on path convergence to stability for decentralized singles markets.Furthermore, we show that when stable matchings exist, but preferences are not weakly responsive, for some initial matchings there may not exist any path obtained from ‘satisfying’ blocking coalitions that yields a stable matching.     

Condorcet cycles in bipartite populations

Summary. Simple majority voting between pairs of alternatives is used to aggregate individual preferences. The occurence of Condorcet cycles is limited thanks to a principle of homogeneity on individual preferences. The restrictions induced on the domain of the latters are weak: among the n! possible orderings of n alternatives, more than one half are admissible within a domain. The resulting aggregated preference has then a neglectable probability of showing up cycles. We show moreover that the set of individual preferences can be `naturally' partitioned into two such domains. Received: June 17, 1996; revised version: April 15, 1997     

On the existence of a strictly strong Nash equilibrium under the student-optimal deferred acceptance algorithm

This study analyzes a preference revelation game in the student-optimal deferred acceptance algorithm in a college admission problem. We assume that each college's true preferences are known publicly, and analyze the strategic behavior of students. We demonstrate the existence of a strictly strong Nash equilibrium in the preference revelation game through a simple algorithm that finds it. Specifically, (i) the equilibrium outcome from our algorithm is the same matching as in the efficiency-adjusted deferred acceptance algorithm and (ii) in a one-to-one matching market, it coincides with the student-optimal von Neumann–Morgenstern (vNM) stable matching. We also show that (i) when a strict core allocation in a housing market derived from a college admission market exists, it can be supported by a strictly strong Nash equilibrium, and (ii) there exists a strictly strong Nash equilibrium under the college-optimal deferred acceptance algorithm if and only if the student-optimal stable matching is Pareto-efficient for students.     

Model Uncertainty, Optimal Monetary Policy and the Preferences of the Fed

Monetary policy in the US is characterized by a substantial degree of inertia. While in principle this may well be the outcome of an optimizing central bank behaviour, the ability of any derived policy rule to match the data relies on so large weights for interest rate smoothing into policy makers' preferences as to be theoretically flawed. In this paper we investigate whether such a puzzle can be interpreted as resulting from the concern of monetary authorities for potential misspecifications of the macroeconomic dynamics. Accordingly, we propose a novel thick modelling approach that incorporates model uncertainty into the identification of central bank's preferences. The thick robust policy rule shows the kind of smoothness observed in the data without resorting to implausible values for the preference parameters.     

Another Graphical Proof of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem

Arrow's (1951) Impossibility Theorem is the idea that, given several well-known assumptions, the social orderings of particular alternatives that are meant to reflect individuals' preferences must match the preferences of an arbitrary individual (the dictator). A social-choice rule other than dictatorship is impossible. Following from Fountain (2000), the author presents another graphical proof of the theorem that is intended to be more accessible to students and teachers of economics. The principal strength of this approach is that the patterns of agreements and conflicts over all possible combinations of two individuals' rankings of alternatives are transparent; appreciating these patterns is the key to intuitively understanding Arrow's theorem. A self-test for readers (or a classroom exercise for students) is included.     

The Revealed Preference Theory of Changing Tastes

We analyse preferences over finite decision problems in order to model decision-makers with „changing tastes”. We provide conditions on these preferences that identify the Strotz model of consistent planning. Building on an example given by Peleg and Yaari (1973) , we show that for problems with infinitely many choices, Strotz's representation of preferences may not be well defined. For that case, we propose a well-defined approximation which is empirically indistinguishable from the Strotz preference that is being approximated.     

The Stability of Hedonic Coalition Structures

We consider the partitioning of a society into coalitions in purely hedonic settings, i.e., where each player's payoff is completely determined by the identity of other members of her coalition. We first discuss how hedonic and nonhedonic settings differ and some sufficient conditions for the existence of core stable coalition partitions in hedonic settings. We then focus on a weaker stability condition: individual stability, where no player can benefit from moving to another coalition while not hurting the members of that new coalition. We show that if coalitions can be ordered according to some characteristic over which players have single-peaked preferences, or where players have symmetric and additively separable preferences, then there exists an individually stable coalition partition. Examples show that without these conditions, individually stable coalition partitions may not exist. We also discuss some other stability concepts, and the incompatibility of stability with other normative properties. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C71, A14, D20.     

A solution to the random assignment problem on the full preference domain

We consider the problem of allocating a set of indivisible objects to agents in a fair and efficient manner. In a recent paper, Bogomolnaia and Moulin consider the case in which all agents have strict preferences, and propose the probabilistic serial (PS) mechanism; they define a new notion of efficiency, called ordinal efficiency, and prove that the probabilistic serial mechanism finds an envy-free ordinally efficient assignment. However, the restrictive assumption of strict preferences is critical to their algorithm. Our main contribution is an analogous algorithm for the full preference domain in which agents are allowed to be indifferent between objects. Our algorithm is based on a reinterpretation of the PS mechanism as an iterative algorithm to compute a “flow” in an associated network. In addition we show that on the full preference domain it is impossible for even a weak strategyproof mechanism to find a random assignment that is both ordinally efficient and envy-free.     

Preference submission timing in school choice matching: testing fairness and efficiency in the laboratory

We investigate the relative merits of the Boston and Serial Dictatorship mechanisms when the timing of students’ preference submission over schools varies within the structure of the mechanism. Despite the well-documented disadvantages of the Boston mechanism Abdulkadiroglu and Sonmez (American Economic Review 93:729–747 2003), we hypothesize that a Boston mechanism where students are required to submit their preferences before the realization of their exam scores, can in fact have fairness and efficiency advantages compared to the often favored Serial Dictatorship mechanism. We test these hypotheses in a series of laboratory experiments which vary by the class of mechanism implemented, and the preference submission timing by students, reflective of actual policy changes which have occurred in China. Our experimental findings confirm the efficiency hypothesis straightforwardly, and lend support to the fairness hypothesis when subjects have the chance to learn with experience. The results have important policy implications for school choice mechanism design when students’ relative rankings by schools are initially uncertain.     

Evolutionary stability of discrimination under observability

We study the evolution of preferences under perfect and almost perfect observability in symmetric 2-player games. We demonstrate that if nature can choose from a sufficiently general preference space, which includes preferences over outcomes that may depend on the opponent's preference-type, then, in most games, only discriminating preferences (treating different types of opponents differently in the same situation) can be evolutionary stable and some discriminating types are stable in a very strong sense in all games. We use these discriminating types to show that any symmetric outcome which gives players more than their minmax value in material payoffs (fitness) can be seen as equilibrium play of a player population with such strongly stable preferences.     

Purely procedural preferences - Beyond procedural equity and reciprocity

We conduct experiments in which parties face a pair of two-player pie-splitting procedures. Parties submit their strategy in each, their beliefs about their opponent's choices, and are also asked whether they prefer one procedure over the other. The procedures – a yes-no game, an ultimatum game, and a dictator game – are designed such that by all existing economic preference models, whether distributive or procedural, parties should be indifferent between them. In particular, the procedures should yield the same outcomes, the same expected outcomes and carry the same information on parties' intentions. At the same time, the procedures differ in the way they distribute decision and information rights across players, and also in their complexity and efficiency. Experimentally, parties do indeed still reveal preferences over the procedures at hand. To explore why this happens, we elicit individuals' simplicity and efficiency ratings of the procedures, and also the degree by which individuals invoke the equality of basic rights and liberties in their moral judgement – an ethical criterion not yet captured by any preference model. The preferences we find link to this data. We explore formalizations for such preferences.