Mechanism design with partial state verifiability

We study implementation in environments where agents have limited ability to imitate others. Agents are randomly and privately endowed with type-dependent sets of messages. So sending a message becomes a partial proof regarding type. For environments where agents can send any combination of available messages, we develop an Extended Revelation Principle and characterize the incentive constraints which implementable allocations must satisfy. When not all message combinations are feasible, static mechanisms no longer suffice. If a ‘punishment’ allocation exists for each agent, then implementable allocations can be characterized as equilibria of a “Revelation Game,” in which agents first select from the menus of allocation rules, then the mediator requests each agent to send some verifying messages. When a punishment allocation fails to exist for some agent, dynamic games in which agents gradually reveal their evidence implement a larger set of outcomes. The latter result provides a foundation for a theory of debate.     

Run equilibria in the Green–Lin model of financial intermediation

We study the Green–Lin model of financial intermediation [E.J. Green, P. Lin, Implementing efficient allocations in a model of financial intermediation, J. Econ. Theory 109 (2003) 1–23] under a more general specification of the distribution of types across agents. We derive the efficient allocation in closed form. We show that, in some cases, the intermediary cannot uniquely implement the efficient allocation using a direct revelation mechanism. In these cases, the mechanism also admits an equilibrium in which some (but not all) agents “run” on the intermediary and withdraw their funds regardless of their true liquidity needs. In other words, self-fulfilling runs can arise in a generalized Green–Lin model and these runs are necessarily partial, with only some agents participating.     

Comparing finite mechanisms

Summary. This paper obtains finite analogues to propositions that a previous literature obtained about the informational efficiency of mechanisms whose possible messages form a continuum. Upon reaching an equilibrium message, to which all persons “agree”, a mechanism obtains an action appropriate to the organization's environment. Each person's privately observed characteristic (a part of the organization's environment) enters her agreement rule. An example is the Walrasian mechanism in an exchange economy. There a message specifies a proposed trade vector for each trader as well as a price for each non-numeraire commodity. A trader agrees if the price of each non-numeraire commodity equals her marginal utility for that commodity (at the proposed trades) divided by her marginal utility for the numeraire. At an equilibrium message, the mechanism's action consists of the trades specified in that message, and (for classic economies) those trades are Pareto-optimal and individually rational. Even though the space of environments (characteristics) is a continuum, mechanisms with a continuum of possible messages are unrealistic, since transmitting every point of a continuum is impossible. In reality, messages have to be rounded off and the number of possible messages has to be finite. Moreover, reaching a continuum mechanism's equilibrium message typically requires infinite time and that difficulty is absent if the number of possible messages is finite. The question therefore arises whether results about continuum mechanisms have finite counterparts. If we measure a continuum mechanism's communication cost by its message-space dimension, then our corresponding cost measure for a finite mechanism is the (finite) number of possible equilibrium messages. We find that if two continuum mechanisms yield the same action but the first has higher message-space dimension, then a sufficiently fine finite approximation of the first has larger error than an approximation of the second if the cost of the first approximation is no higher than the cost of the second approximation. An approximation's “error” is the largest distance between the continuum mechanism's action and the approximation's action. We obtain bounds on error. We also study the performance of Direct Revelation (DR) mechanisms relative to “indirect” mechanisms, both yielding the same action, when the environment set grows. We find that as the environment-set dimension goes to infinity, so does the extra cost of the DR approximation, if the error of the DR approximation is at least as small as the error of the indirect approximation. While the paper deals with information-processing costs and not incentives, it is related to the incentive literature, since the Revelation Principle is central to much of that literature and one of our main results is the informational inefficiency of finite Direct Revelation mechanisms. Received: May 21, 2001; revised version: December 14, 2001 RID="*" ID="*" Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Decentralization Conference, Washington University, St Louis, April 2000 and at the Eighth World Congress of the Econometric Society, August 2000. We are grateful for comments received on those occasions. The second author gratefully acknowledges support from National Science Foundation grant #IIS9712131. Correspondence to: T. Marschak     

Sequential, nonzero-sum “Blotto”: Allocating defensive resources prior to attack

The strategic allocation of resources across multiple fronts has long been studied in the context of Blotto games in which two players simultaneously select their allocations. However many allocation problems are sequential. For example, a state trying to defend against a terrorist attack generally allocates some or all of its resources before the attacker decides where to strike. This paper studies the allocation problem confronting a defender who must decide how to distribute limited resources across multiple sites before an attacker chooses where to strike. Unlike many Blotto games which only have very complicated mixed-strategy equilibria, the sequential, nonzero-sum “Blotto” game always has a very simple pure-strategy subgame perfect equilibrium. Further, the defender always plays the same pure strategy in any equilibrium, and the attacker's equilibrium response is generically unique and entails no mixing. The defender minmaxes the attacker in equilibrium even though the game is nonzero-sum, and the attacker strikes the site among its best replies that minimizes the defender's expected losses.     

Duality theory for dynamic optimization models of economics: The continuous time case

This paper establishes that the competitive allocation process is the only informationally decentralized mechanism for exchange environments which (i) achieves Pareto optimal allocations; (ii) gives each consumer an allocation which is, according to his preferences, at least as good as his endowment; (iii) satisfies certain regularity conditions; and (iv) has a message space of the smallest dimension necessary to satisfy (i–iii).     

Simple sequencing problems with interdependent costs

In this paper we analyze simple sequencing problems under incomplete information and interdependent costs. We prove the necessity of concave cost function for implementability of such problems. Implementability means that one can achieve aggregate cost minimization in ex-post equilibrium. We also show that simple sequencing problems are implementable if and only if the mechanism is a ‘generalized VCG mechanism.’ We then consider first best implementability, that is implementability with budget balancing transfer. We prove that for implementable n agent simple sequencing problems, with polynomial cost function of order (n−2) or less, one can achieve first best implementability. Finally, for the class of implementable simple sequencing problems with “sufficiently well behaved” cost function, this is the only first best class.     

A Revelation Mechanism for Soft Information under Moral Hazard

This paper constructs a revelation mechanism to address a problem of moral hazard under soft information. The agent alone observes the stochastic outcome of her action, which she reports to the principal. Therefore the principal also faces a problem of ex post adverse selection. Economically relevant restrictions induce constraints on the principal's choice of mechanism and the Revelation Principle fails to apply. Specifically, a direct mechanism induces some pooling, which does not replicate the allocation obtained using a larger message space. Pooling also weakens the ex ante incentives. The Revelation Principle is extended to obtain type separation. A better audit relaxes frictions.     

Contracts and externalities: How things fall apart

A single principal interacts with several agents, offering them contracts. The crucial assumption of this paper is that the outside-option payoffs of the agents depend positively on how many uncontracted or “free” agents there are. We study how such a principal, unwelcome though he may be, approaches the problem of contract provision to agents when coordination failure among the latter group is explicitly ruled out. Two variants are considered. When the principal cannot re-approach agents, there is a unique equilibrium, in which contract provision is split up into two phases. In phase 1, simultaneous offers at good (though varying) terms are made to a number of agents. In phase 2, offers must be made sequentially, and their values are “discontinuously” lower: they are close to the very lowest of all the outside options. When the principal can repeatedly approach the same agent, there is a multiplicity of equilibria. In some of these, the agents have the power to force delay. They can hold off the principal's overtures temporarily, but they must succumb in finite time. In both models, despite being able to coordinate their actions, agents cannot resist an “invasion” by the principal and hold to their best payoff. It is in this sense that “things [eventually] fall apart”.     

Serial dictatorship and Pareto optimality

In a deterministic allocation problem in which each agent is entitled to receive exactly one object, an allocation is Pareto optimal if and only if it is the outcome of a serial dictatorship. We extend the definition of serial dictatorship to settings in which some agents may be entitled to receive more than one object, and study the efficiency and uniqueness properties of the equilibrium allocations. We prove that subgame perfect equilibrium allocations of serial dictatorship games are not necessarily Pareto optimal; and generally not all Pareto optima can be implemented as subgame perfect equilibrium allocations of serial dictatorship games, except in the 2-agent separable preference case. Moreover, serial dictatorship games do not necessarily have unique subgame perfect equilibrium allocations, except in the 2-agent case, hence their outcomes are indeterminate and manipulable.     

Achieving efficiency with manipulative bargainers

Two agents bargain over the allocation of a bundle of divisible commodities. After strategically reporting utility functions to a neutral arbitrator, the outcome is decided by using a bargaining solution concept chosen from a family that includes the Nash and the Raiffa–Kalai–Smorodinsky solutions. When reports are restricted to be continuous, strictly increasing and concave, it has been shown that this kind of “distortion game” leads to inefficient outcomes. We study the distortion game originated when agents are also allowed to claim non-concave utility functions. Contrasting with the previous literature, any interior equilibrium outcome is efficient and any efficient allocation can be supported as an equilibrium outcome of the distortion game. In a similar fashion to the Nash demand game we consider some uncertainty about the opponent's features to virtually implement the Nash bargaining solution.     

Group incentive compatibility in a market with indivisible goods

In a market where each trader has one unit of an indivisible good, there are procedures for exchanging goods which result in competitive allocations. One of these procedures, the top trading cycle, has the property that it is in each trader's best interest to report his true preferences over the set of goods. This note shows that no subset of traders can misrepresent their preferences and improve the allocation for all members of the subset. Additionally, if there are no indifferences in the preferences, then some traders in a subset that misrepresents preferences do worse.     

The (sub-)optimality of the majority rule

We consider collective choice from two alternatives. Ex-ante, each agent is uncertain about which alternative she prefers, and may be uncertain about the intensity of her preferences. An environment is given by a probability distribution over utility vectors that is symmetric across agents and neutral across alternatives. In many environments, the majority voting rule maximizes agents? ex-ante expected utilities among all anonymous and dominant-strategy implementable choice rules. But in some environments where the agents? utilities are stochastically correlated, other dominant-strategy choice rules are better for all agents. If utilities are stochastically independent across agents, majority voting is ex-ante optimal among all anonymous and incentive-compatible rules. We also compare rules from an interim-viewpoint.     

Undominated Nash Implementation with Collusion and Renegotiation

This article looks at implementation in economic environments when agents have perfect information about the state of the world, but cannot commit not to renegotiate bad outcomes or to collude against each other. If renegotiation satisfies a weak condition of disagreement point monotonicity, then any Pareto-efficient social choice function can be implemented if there are at least three agents who play undominated Nash equilibria. The mechanism does not use modulo or integer games, has no bad mixed strategy equilibria, and is “bounded.”Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Number: D71.     

On fair allocations

This paper examines the effects of fairness on economic behavior and allocations, where fairness is defined as the absence of envy among consumers. We use the benefit function to investigate the welfare cost of fairness. We show how fairness generates a form of altruism, captured by a “fair expenditure” function that depends on the distribution of welfare. We define the most efficient fair allocations and explore the implications of fairness for economic behavior, pricing and redistribution policies.     

Outside versus inside bonds: A Modigliani–Miller type result for liquidity constrained economies

When agents are liquidity constrained, two options exist – sell assets or borrow. We compare the allocations arising in two economies: in one, agents can sell government (outside) bonds and in the other they can borrow by issuing (inside) bonds. All transactions are voluntary, implying no taxation or forced redemption of private debt. We show that any allocation in the economy with inside bonds can be replicated in the economy with outside bonds but that the converse is not true. However, the optimal policy in each economy makes the allocations equivalent.     

Efficient and stable collective choices under gregarious preferences

We consider collective choice problems where a set of agents have to choose an alternative from a finite set and agents may or may not become users of the chosen alternative. An allocation is a pair given by the chosen alternative and the set of its users. Agents have gregarious preferences over allocations: given an allocation, they prefer that the set of users becomes larger. We require that the final allocation be efficient and stable (no agent can be forced to be a user and no agent who wants to be a user can be excluded). We propose a two-stage sequential mechanism whose unique subgame perfect equilibrium outcome is an efficient and stable allocation which also satisfies a maximal participation property.     

Efficient and stable collective choices under gregarious preferences

We consider collective choice problems where a set of agents have to choose an alternative from a finite set and agents may or may not become users of the chosen alternative. An allocation is a pair given by the chosen alternative and the set of its users. Agents have gregarious preferences over allocations: given an allocation, they prefer that the set of users becomes larger. We require that the final allocation be efficient and stable (no agent can be forced to be a user and no agent who wants to be a user can be excluded). We propose a two-stage sequential mechanism whose unique subgame perfect equilibrium outcome is an efficient and stable allocation which also satisfies a maximal participation property.     

Single Object Auctions With Externalities: A Tractable Model

We consider the single object auction model with allocative externalities in a private valuation and quasi‐linear setting. We model externalities by assuming that every agent has a private valuation (for the object) and a strict ranking of other agents. The utility for an agent when another agent receives the object is the product of his own valuation and a real number that depends on the rank of this agent in his ranking. When the only private information is the valuation of the agents, we characterise the implementable allocation rules and use these to derive the optimal auction. The optimal auction collects payments from agents who do not receive the object.     

Eliciting Preferences to Assign Positions and Compensation

We describe strategy-proof rules for economies where an agent is assigned a position (e.g., a job) plus some of a divisible good. For the 2-agent–2-position case we derive a robust characterization. For the multi-agent–position case, many “arbitrary” such rules exist, so we consider additional requirements. By also requiring coalitional strategy-proofness or nonbossiness, the range of a solution is restricted to the point that such rules are not more complex than those for the Shapley–Scarf housing model (no divisible good). Third, we show that essentially only constant solutions are immune to manipulations involving “bribes.” Finally, we demonstrate a conflict between efficiency and strategy-proofness. The results extend to models (without externalities) in which agents share positions. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C72, D70.     

On planning procedures which are locally strategy proof

We consider planning procedures which generalize the MDP procedure in the sense that, at each step, the planning bureau asks the agents their marginal rates of substitution, and uses the answers to revise the previously announced feasible programme. Such a procedure is “locally strategy proof” if, at each step, answering one's true marginal rate of substitution is the best myopic strategy for each agent. We give a general characterization of the family of locally strategy proof procedures and study its neutrality properties.