Preference revelation with a limited number of indifference classes

Suppose that g is a strategy-proof social choice rule on the domain of all profiles of complete and transitive binary relations that have exactly m indifference classes. If and the range of g has three or more members, then g is dictatorial. If m = 2, then for any set X of feasible alternatives, there exist non-dictatorial and strategy-proof rules that are sensitive to the preferences of every individual and which have X as range.     

Dictatorial domains

Summary. In this paper, we introduce the notion of a linked domain and prove that a non-manipulable social choice function defined on such a domain must be dictatorial. This result not only generalizes the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem but also demonstrates that the equivalence between dictatorship and non-manipulability is far more robust than suggested by that theorem. We provide an application of this result in a particular model of voting. We also provide a necessary condition for a domain to be dictatorial and use it to characterize dictatorial domains in the cases where the number of alternatives is three. Received: July 12, 2000; revised version: March 21, 2002 RID="*" ID="*" The authors would like to thank two anonymous referees for their detailed comments. Correspondence to: A. Sen     

STRATEGIC CANDIDACY AND SINGLE‐PEAKEDNESS*

In elections, the voting outcomes are affected by strategic entries of candidates. We study a class of voting rules immune to strategic candidacy. Dutta et al. (2001 ) show that such rules satisfying unanimity are dictatorial if all orderings of candidates are admissible for voters’ preferences. When voters’ preferences are single‐peaked over a political spectrum, there exist non‐dictatorial rules immune to strategic candidacy. An example is the rule selecting the m‐th peak from the left among the peaks of voters’ preferences, where m is any natural number no more than the number of voters. We show that immunity from strategic candidacy with basic axioms fully characterizes the family of the m‐th leftmost peak rules.     

Relaxing Pareto optimality in economic environments

Summary.  The individual preference domain is the family of profiles of economic preferences on the set of allocations of public or private goods, or both. The agenda domain assumption allows for a finite lower bound on the size of a feasible set. If a social choice correspondence satisfies nonimposition, Arrow’s choice axiom, and independence of infeasible alternatives then it is directly or inversely dictatorial, or null. Received: October 10, 1995; revised version: June 20, 1996     

Strategy-proof allocation mechanisms for pure public goods economies when preferences are monotonic

Summary. A fundamental problem in public finance is that of allocating a␣given budget to financing the provision of public goods (education, transportation, police, etc.). In this paper it is established that when␣admissible preferences are those representable by continuous and increasing utility functions, then strategy-proof allocation mechanisms whose (undominated) range contains three or more outcomes are dictatorial on the set of profiles of strictly increasing utility functions, a dense subset of the domain in the topologies commonly used in this context. If admissible utility functions are further restricted to be strictly increasing, or if mechanisms are required to be non-wasteful, then strategy-profness leads to (full) dictatorship. Received: August 14, 1995; revised version: September 25, 1997     

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.     

A Measure Of The Trade‐Off Between Responsiveness and Nondictatorship for Arrovian Social Welfare Functions

If individuals are never indifferent between distinct alternatives then for any transitive‐valued social welfare function satisfying IIA, and any fraction t, either the set of pairs of alternatives that are socially ordered without consulting more than one individual's preferences comprises at least the fraction t of all pairs, or else the fraction of pairs that have their social ordering determined independently of everyone's s preferences exceeds, or is very close to, 1 ?t. The Pareto criterion is not imposed. (There is also a version of this result for the domain of preferences that admit indifference.)     

Implementation with partial provability

We extend implementation theory by allowing the social choice function to depend on more than just the preferences of the agents and allowing agents to support their statements with hard evidence. We show that a simple condition on evidence is necessary for the implementation of a social choice function f when the preferences of the agents are state independent and sufficient for implementation for any preferences (including state dependent) with at least three agents if the social planner can perform small monetary transfers beyond those called for by f. If transfers can be large, f can be implemented in a game with perfect information when there are at least two players under a boundedness assumption. For both results, transfers only occur out of equilibrium. The use of evidence enables implementation which is robust in the sense that the planner needs little information about agents? preferences or beliefs and agents need little information about each others? preferences. Our results are robust to evidence forgery at any strictly positive cost.     

Random dictatorship domains

A domain of preference orderings is a random dictatorship domain if every strategy-proof random social choice function satisfying unanimity defined on the domain is a random dictatorship. Gibbard (1977) showed that the universal domain is a random dictatorship domain. We ask whether an arbitrary dictatorial domain is a random dictatorship domain and show that the answer is negative by constructing dictatorial domains that admit anonymous, unanimous, strategy-proof random social choice functions which are not random dictatorships. Our result applies to the constrained voting model. Lastly, we show that substantial strengthenings of linked domains (a class of dictatorial domains introduced in Aswal et al., 2003) are needed to restore random dictatorship and such strengthenings are “almost necessary”.     

Public decisions: Solidarity and the status quo

A public decision model specifies a set of alternatives, a variable population, and a common set of admissible preferences. We study the implications of the principle of solidarity, for social choice functions in all such models. The principle says that when the environment changes, all agents not responsible for the change should either all weakly win, or all weakly lose. Under weak additional requirements, but regardless the domain of preferences, each of two formulations of this principle, population-monotonicity and replacement-domination, imply coalition-strategy-proofness; that the choice only depends on the set of preferences that are present in the society, but not on the number, nor on the labels of agents having particular preferences; and that there exists an alternative always weakly Pareto-dominated by the alternative selected by the rule. Replacement-domination is generally at least as strong as population-monotonicity.     

A unifying impossibility theorem

This paper identifies and illuminates a common impossibility principle underlying a number of impossibility theorems in social choice. We consider social choice correspondences assigning a choice set to each non-empty subset of social alternatives. Three simple axioms are imposed as follows: unanimity, independence of preferences over infeasible alternatives, and choice consistency with respect to choices out of all possible alternatives. With more than three social alternatives and the universal preference domain, any social choice correspondence that satisfies our axioms is serially dictatorial. A number of known impossibility theorems—including Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, the Muller–Satterthwaite Theorem, and the impossibility theorem under strategic candidacy—follow as corollaries.     

Second price auctions on general preference domains: two characterizations

Auction theory usually assumes the quasi-linearity of individual preferences. We drop this assumption and define an extension of second price mechanisms that applies to general preferences. It turns out that the extended second price mechanisms are the only rules satisfying efficiency, strategy-proofness, and a mild non-imposition property. Their definition is simple just as much as the definition of usual second price mechanisms: everyone reports his maximum willingness to pay and the bidder whose reported value is highest buys the auctioned object for the price equal to the second highest reported value. The characterization is valid if efficiency is replaced by envy-freeness. I gratefully acknowledge an associate editor and two anonymous referees for their very helpful comments. Hiroki Saitoh and Shigehiro Serizawa independently obtain a result that is closely related to my main result (see, Remark in Sect. 1). I thank them for sending me the paper and communication, and Yuji Fujinaka for informing me about their work. I also thank the financial support by KAKENHI (19310031).     

Strategy-proofness versus efficiency for small domains of preferences over public goods

Summary. It has long been known that when agents have von Neumann-Morgenstern preferences over lotteries, there is an incompatibility between strategy-proofness and efficiency (Gibbard, [9]; Hylland, [12]) – a solution satisfying those properties must be dictatorial. We strengthen this result by showing that it follows from the same incompatibility on a series of much smaller domains of preferences. Specifically, we first show the incompatibility to hold on our smallest domain, in which two agents are restricted to have linear preferences over one private good and one public good produced from the private good (Kolm triangle economies). This result then implies the same incompatibility on increasingly larger domains of preferences, ending finally with the class of von Neumann-Morgenstern preferences over lotteries. Received: February 6, 1997; revised version: January 29, 1998     

Weeds in the Ivy: college admissions under preference constraints

In a series of cases spanning more than three decades, the courts have attempted to establish boundaries on the permissible use of racial preferences in college admissions. Proponents of these policies believe that race-based preferences are needed to create a diverse student body that facilitates effective learning and social inclusion. Opponents of such policies contend that racial preferences are inherently discriminatory and eliminating them would yield a more able student body. Whereas race-based preferences have garnered the most attention, elite colleges regularly employ other types of preferences, including those for alumni and talented athletes. To inform this important policy debate, we develop a simple model comprised of a rational college administrator that maximizes a linear combination of student body ability and the college endowment through the choice of race, legacy and merit admission shares. We find that relaxing the racial-preferences constraint can produce a ‘less-able’ student body even when the college administrator places greater weight on student body ability than she does on the college endowment. The change in admissions policy may serve only to increase the number of admissions that can be ‘sold’ to wealthy alumni through legacy preferences and thereby foster the growth of weeds in the Ivy.     

STRATEGY‐PROOF ALLOCATION OF INDIVISIBLE GOODS AMONG COUPLES

We consider the problem of allocating indivisible goods among couples. Agents in a couple share the indivisible good assigned to them. The main result is that an allocation rule is strategy‐proof, neutral and non‐bossy if and only if it is serially dictatorial. An allocation rule is serially dictatorial if there is a priority order of couples and a function that identifies who chooses in each couple, such that for all preference profiles, a good assigned to couple i is the best element according to the preference of the identified agent in couple i among the remaining goods when the couples with higher priorities have made their choice.     

A dictatorial domain for monotone social choice functions

We give a dictatorial domain for monotone and unanimous social choice functions.     

Strategy-proof risk sharing

We consider risk sharing problems with a single good and a finite number of states. Agents have a common prior and their preferences are represented in the expected utility form and are risk averse. We study efficient and individually rational risk sharing rules satisfying strategy-proofness, the requirement that no one can ever benefit by misrepresenting his preference. When aggregate certainty holds, we show that “fixed price selections” from Walrasian correspondence are the only rules satisfying efficiency, individual rationality, and strategy-proofness. However, when aggregate uncertainty holds, we show that there exists no rule satisfying the three requirements. Moreover, in the two agents case, we show that dictatorial rules are the only efficient and strategy-proof rules. Dropping the common prior assumption in the model, we show that this assumption is necessary and sufficient for the existence of rules satisfying the three main requirements in the two agents and aggregate certainty case.     

Justifiable preferences

We characterize preferences over acts that can be represented by a utility function and a multiple-prior, such that an act f is preferred to act g if there is a prior under which the expected utility induced by f is higher than that induced by g. These preferences are referred to as justifiable preferences. We further introduce a generalized model of ambiguity that involves a collection of multiple-priors, namely, multiple multiple-priors and incorporate Bewley?s Knightian model in justifiability: f is preferred to g if, according to at least one set of priors, f is unanimously preferred to g.     

Stable schedule matching under revealed preference

Baiou and Balinski (Math. Oper. Res., 27 (2002) 485) studied schedule matching where one determines the partnerships that form and how much time they spend together, under the assumption that each agent has a ranking on all potential partners. Here we study schedule matching under more general preferences that extend the substitutable preferences in Roth (Econometrica 52 (1984) 47) by an extension of the revealed preference approach in Alkan (Econom. Theory 19 (2002) 737). We give a generalization of the Gale-Shapley algorithm and show that some familiar properties of ordinary stable matchings continue to hold. Our main result is that, when preferences satisfy an additional property called size monotonicity, stable matchings are a lattice under the joint preferences of all agents on each side and have other interesting structural properties.