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.     

Vickrey allocation rule with income effect

We consider situations in which a society tries to efficiently allocate several homogeneous and indivisible goods among agents. Each agent receives at most one unit of the good. In this paper, we establish that on domains that include nonquasi-linear preferences—preferences exhibiting income effects—an allocation rule that satisfies Pareto-efficiency, strategy-proofness, individual rationality, and nonnegative payment uniquely exists, which is the Vickrey allocation rule. H. Saitoh is a JSPS Research Fellow.     

Identical Preferences Lower Bound for Allocation of Heterogenous Tasks and NIMBY Problems

We study the allocation of collectively owned indivisible goods when monetary transfers are possible. We restrict our attention to incentive‐compatible mechanisms which allocate the goods efficiently. Among these mechanisms, we characterize those that respect the identical preferences lower bound: each agent should be at least as well off as in a hypothetical economy where all agents have the same preference as hers, no agent envies another, and the budget is balanced.     

Coalitional Strategy-Proofness in Economies with Single-Dipped Preferences and the Assignment of an Indivisible Object

We study two allocation models. In the first model, we consider the problem of allocating an infinitely divisible commodity among agents with single-dipped preferences. In the second model, a degenerate case of the first one, we study the allocation of an indivisible object to a group of agents. Our main result is the characterization of the class of Pareto optimal and coalitionally strategy-proof allocation rules. Alternatively, this class of rules, which largely consists of serially dictatorial components, can be characterized by Pareto optimality, strategy-proofness, and weak non-bossiness (in terms of welfare). Furthermore, we study properties of fairness such as anonymity and no-envy. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: D63, D71.     

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     

Strategy-proof and nonbossy allocation of indivisible goods and money

Summary. Which strategy-proof nonbossy mechanisms exist in a model with a finite number of indivisible goods (houses, jobs, positions) and a perfectly divisible good (money)? The main finding is that only a finite number of distributions of the divisible good is consistent with strategy-proofness and nonbossiness. Under various additional assumptions - neutrality, individual rationality, object efficiency, weak decentralization - the distribution of the divisible good is further restricted. For instance, under neutrality the outcome of the mechanism can have only one distribution, which is hence independent of individual preferences. In this case the mechanism becomes serially dictatorial. On the other hand, individual rationality leads to a fixed price equilibrium with a well-defined rationing method (Gale's top-trading cycle procedure). Received: October 3, 2000; revised version: August 10, 2001     

Up/Downward Preference Aggregation

Two strict preference aggregation mechanisms are suggested. One determines the collective preference from the most preferred to the least preferred alternative using as inputs the individuals' most preferred alternatives once the alternatives already assigned a position in the collective preference have been removed. The other mechanism does the same the other way around, constructing the preference starting from the least preferred alternative and using the least preferred remaining alternatives as inputs. It is shown that if both procedures are assumed to generate the same collective preference then the resulting aggregation rule must be dictatorial or constant. Weaker versions of these procedures also yield a dictatorial aggregation rule when combined with mild versions of unanimity or surjectivity.     

Dynamic sorting in durable goods markets with buyer heterogeneity

In a competitive dynamic durable good market where sellers have private information about quality, I identify certain inefficiencies that arise due to heterogeneity in buyers' valuations. Even if the market induces dynamic sorting among sellers and all goods are eventually traded, inefficiency can arise because high valuation buyers buy early when low‐quality goods are sold, while high‐quality goods are allocated to low valuation buyers that buy later. This misallocation adds to the inefficiency caused by delay in trading. Under certain circumstances, high‐quality goods may never be traded as in a static market.     

Exchange in a general market with indivisible goods

We show how to restrict trades in exchange markets with heterogeneous indivisible goods so that the resulting restricted exchange markets, the fixed deal exchange markets, have a unique core allocation. Our results on fixed deal exchange markets generalize classical results on the Shapley-Scarf housing market, in which each agent owns one good only. Furthermore, we define the class of fixed deal exchange rules for general exchange markets, and prove that these are the only exchange rules that satisfy strategyproofness, individual rationality, and a weak form of efficiency.     

FAIR ALLOCATION OF DISPUTED PROPERTIES

We model problems of allocating disputed properties as generalized exchange economies. Therein, agents have preferences and claims over multiple goods, and the social endowment of each good may not be sufficient to satisfy all individual claims. We focus on market‐based allocation rules that impose a two‐step procedure: assignment of rights based on claims first and voluntary exchange based on the assigned rights afterward. We characterize three focal egalitarian rights‐assignment rules that guarantee that the allocation rules are fair. We apply our results to problems of greenhouse gas emissions and contested water rights.     

Strategyproof and Nonbossy Multiple Assignments

We consider the allocation of heterogeneous indivisible objects without using monetary transfers. Each agent may be assigned more than one object. We show that an allocation rule is strategyproof, nonbossy, and satisfies citizen sovereignty if and only if it is a sequential dictatorship . In a sequential dictatorship agents are assigned their favorite objects that are still available, according to a sequentially endogenously determined hierarchy of the agents. We also establish that replacing nonbossiness by a stronger criterion restricts the characterized class of allocation rules to serial dictatorships , in which the hierarchy of the agents is fixed a priori.     

Robustness of sunspot equilibria

Summary. A sunspot equilibrium (SSE) is based on some extrinsic randomizing device (RD). We analyze the robustness of SSE. (1) We say that an SSE allocation is robust to refinements if it is also an SSE allocation based on any refinement of its RD. (2) We introduce two core concepts for analyzing the robustness of SSE in the face of cooperative-coalition formation. In the first, the blocking allocations are based on the RD that defines the SSE. In the second (stronger) core concept, coalitions select their own RDs. For the convex economy with restricted market participation, SSE allocations are robust under each of the definitions and the cores converge on replication of the economy to the set of SSE allocations. For the economy with an indivisible good, SSE allocations are not always robust. We provide examples of each of the following: (i) an SSE allocation that is not robust to refinement, (ii) an SSE allocation that is in neither core, (iii) an SSE allocation that is in the first core, but not in the second, and (iv) a core that does not converge upon replication to the set of SSE allocations. Received: July 31, 1995; revised version August 30, 1996     

The strategy-proof provision of public goods under congestion and crowding preferences

We examine the strategy-proof provision of excludable public goods when agents care about the number of other consumers. We show that strategy-proof and efficient social choice functions satisfying an outsider independence condition must always assign a fixed number of consumers, regardless of individual desires to participate. A hierarchical rule selects participants and a generalized median rule selects the level of the public good. Under heterogeneity in agents’ views on the optimal number of consumers, strategy-proof, efficient, and outsider independent social choice functions are much more limited and in an important case must be dictatorial.     

Existence and Welfare Properties of Equilibrium in an Exchange Economy with Multiple Divisible and Indivisible Commodities and Linear Production Technologies

In this paper we consider a class of economies with a finite number of divisible commodities, linear production technologies, and indivisible goods and a finite number of agents. This class contains several well-known economies with indivisible goods and money as special cases. It is shown that if the utility functions are continuous on the divisible commodities and are weakly monotonic both on one of the divisible commodities and on all the indivisible commodities, if each agent initially owns a sufficient amount of one of the divisible commodities, and if a “no production without input”-like assumption on the production sector holds, then there exists a competitive equilibrium for any economy in this class. The usual convexity assumption is not needed here. Furthermore, by imposing strong monotonicity on one of the divisible commodities we show that any competitive equilibrium is in the core of the economy and therefore the first theorem of welfare also holds. We further obtain a second welfare theorem stating that under some conditions a Pareto efficient allocation can be sustained by a competitive equilibrium allocation for some well-chosen redistribution of the total initial endowments. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: D4, D46, D5, D51, D6, D61.     

THE SECOND‐PRICE AUCTION SOLVES KING SOLOMON'S DILEMMA*

The planner wants to give k identical, indivisible objects to the top k valuation agents at zero costs. Each agent knows her own valuation of the object and whether it is among the top k. Modify the (k+ 1)st‐price sealed‐bid auction by introducing a small participation fee and the option not to participate in it. This simple mechanism implements the desired outcome in iteratively undominated strategies. Moreover, no pair of agents can profitably deviate from the equilibrium by coordinating their strategies or bribing each other.     

The ratchet effect and bargaining power in a two-stage model of competitive bidding

Summary. In the model presented, a buyer uses competitive bidding to facilitate her purchase of a good (the primary good of the exchange). Not included in the original purchase is the possible procurement of a good related to the original purchase: the supplementary good. The primary and supplementary goods are closely related; knowing a bidder's cost of producing the primary good implies that the buyer can infer the bidder's cost of producing the supplementary good. I show that a bidding mechanism for the primary good will fail to ensure an efficient allocation if the buyer learns the bid of the winner and the price of the supplementary good is determined through sequential bargaining. Received: August 22, 1996; revised version: June 23, 1997     

Forming and Dissolving Partnerships in Cooperative Game Situations

A group of players in a cooperative game are partners (e.g., as in the form of a union or a joint ownership) if the prospects for cooperation are restricted such that cooperation with players outside the partnership requires the accept of all the partners. The formation of such partnerships through binding agreements may change the game implying that players could have incentives to manipulate a game by forming or dissolving partnerships. The present paper seeks to explore the existence of allocation rules that are immune to this type of manipulation. An allocation rule that distributes the worth of the grand coalition among players is called partnership formation‐proof if it ensures that it is never jointly profitable for any group of players to form a partnership and partnership dissolution‐proof if no group can ever profit from dissolving a partnership. The paper provides results on the existence of such allocation rules for general classes of games as well as more specific results concerning well‐known allocation rules.     

The separability axiom and equal-sharing methods

A quasi-linear social choice problem is defined as selecting one (among finitely many) indivisible public decision and a vector of monetary transfers among agents to cover the cost of this decision. This decision is based upon individual preferences, which are assumed to be additively separable and linear in money. The Separability axiom is a consistency property for choice methods on societies with variable size: the decision is not affected if we remove an arbitrary agent under the condition that he be guaranteed his original utility level and the cost to the remaining agents is modified accordingly. Thus the utility level assigned by the social choice function to agent i is the price at which the other agents are unanimously willing to buy agent is share of the decision power. A general characterization of choice methods satisfying this axiom is provided. Three subclasses of particular interest are characterized by additional milder axioms. Those are: (i) equal sharing of the surplus left over some reference utility (e.g., the utility at a status quo decision), (ii) utilitarian methods that merely select the efficient public decision and perform no monetary transfers, and (iii) equal allocation of nonseparable costs, which divides equally the surplus left over from the utility derived from the pivotal mechanism (also known as the Vickrey-Clarke-Groves mechanism).     

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.     

Euclidean individual preference and continuous social preference

Assume a finite society, a standard space of allocations of public goods, and an open and connected domain of profiles of Euclidean individual preferences. (There is an additional technical restriction on the domain.) If a social welfare function f satisfies Arrow's independence axiom and generates social preferences that are continuous and transitive, then f is constant or dictatorial or inversely dictatorial.