Pivotal voters: A new proof of arrow's theorem

This paper presents a new proof of Arrow's ‘General Possibility Theorem’, focusing on the way how ‘social’ preferences change in response to changes in the preferences of individuals, under given social welfare functions.     

An alternative proof of Fishburn’s axiomatization of lexicographic preferences

We present an alternative proof of Fishburn’s (1975) axiomatization of lexicographic preferences. The essence of our proof lies in identifying “an extremely pivotal factor”. Our proof reconfirms the strong interconnections between Arrow’s and Gibbard–Satterthwaite’s theorems with Fishburn’s axiomatization.     

Equilibria in infinite-dimensional production economies with convexified coalitions

Summary. This paper deals with a private ownership production economy assuming that the commodity space is infinite-dimensional. It is first showed that the fuzzy core allocations, a concept that goes back to J.-P. Aubin, are in a one-to-one correspondence with certain core allocations of a continuum economy suitably defined. This result is obtained under convexity of preferences and production sets and separability of the commodity space. In the case of nonconvex preferences and production sets, the set of fuzzy coalitions can be enlarged in order to obtain that every allocation of the core accordingly defined is supported by a non zero price. The proof of the equivalence result when the positive cone of the commodity space has the empty interior, is obtained under assumptions of properness for preferences relations and production sets. Received: July 9, 1998; revised version: December 6, 1999     

INCENTIVES FOR COMPETITIVE RESPONSES IN REPLICATED ECONOMIES: A GENERALIZATION

A simple proof is presented of a theorem of Roberts and Postlewaite on truthful revelation of preferences for replicated economies. The proof provides some generalizations of the earlier result using the strict definition of feasibility. First, to economies with an infinity of agents but with a finite number of types; secondly, to economies with a countable number of commodities.     

On the uniqueness of individual demand at almost every price system

A simple new proof, based on Fubini's theorem, is given for the uniqueness of individual demand at almost every price system, even if preferences are nonconvex.     

Neutrality in arrow and other impossibility theorems

Summary. Although not assumed explicitly, we show that neutrality plays an important role in Arrow and other impossibility theorems. Applying it to pivotal voters we produce direct proofs of classical impossibility theorems, including Arrow's, as well as extend some of these theorems. We further explore the role of neutrality showing that it is equivalent to Pareto or reverse Pareto, and to effective dictatorship for non-null social welfare functions satisfying the principle of independence of irrelevant alternatives. It is also equivalent to Wilson's Citizens' Sovereignty--which is related to the intuition that symmetry over alternatives makes social preference depend only on citizens' preferences. We show that some of these results are more fundamental than others in that they extend both to infinite societies and to considerably smaller domains of preferences. Finally, as an application of Arrow's theorem, we provide a simple proof of the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem.Received: 13 April 2000, Revised: 6 December 2002, JEL Classification Numbers: D71, C70.I thank Salvador Barberá, Luis Corchón, Cesar Martinelli, Eric Maskin, Tomas Sjöström, Ricard Torres, José Pedro Ubeda, and an anonymous referee for feedback. The proofs of Arrow's theorem and two Wilson's theorems come from a note I wrote in 1987 at Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona (Ubeda [16]). In 1996 Geanakoplos [7] wrote a proof of Arrow's theorem similar but not identical to mine. All work in this paper is independent of his.     

Corrigendum to “Stable matchings and preferences of couples” [J. Econ. Theory 121 (1) (2005) 75–106]

We correct an omission in the definition of the domain of weakly responsive preferences introduced in [B. Klaus, F. Klijn, Stable matchings and preferences of couples, J. Econ. Theory 121 (2005) 75–106] or KK05 for short. The proof of the existence of stable matchings [KK05, Theorem 3.3] and a maximal domain result [KK05, Theorem 3.5] are adjusted accordingly.     

A note on Deaton's theorem on the undesirability of nonuniform excise taxation

The paper provides an extension and a new proof of Deaton's theorem on the undesirability of nonuniform excise taxation when income taxes are affine and preferences over consumption goods are separable from labour–leisure choices, homothetic, and identical across agents.     

Probabilistic assignment of objects: Characterizing the serial rule

We study the problem of assigning a set of objects to a set of agents, when each agent receives one object and has strict preferences over the objects. In the absence of monetary transfers, we focus on the probabilistic rules, which take the ordinal preferences as input. We characterize the serial rule, proposed by Bogomolnaia and Moulin (2001) [2]: it is the only rule satisfying sd efficiency, sd no-envy, and bounded invariance. A special representation of feasible assignment matrices by means of consumption processes is the key to the simple and intuitive proof of our main result.     

Core many-to-one matchings by fixed-point methods

We characterize the core many-to-one matchings as fixed points of a map. Our characterization gives an algorithm for finding core allocations; the algorithm is efficient and simple to implement. Our characterization does not require substitutable preferences, so it is separate from the structure needed for the non-emptiness of the core. When preferences are substitutable, our characterization gives a simple proof of the lattice structure of core matchings, and it gives a method for computing the join and meet of two core matchings.     

Strategy-Proofness and the Tops-Only Property

A social choice function satisfies the tops‐only property if the chosen alternative only depends on each person's report of his most‐preferred alternatives on the range of this function. On many domains, strategy‐proofness implies the tops‐only property provided that the range of the social choice function satisfies some regularity condition. The existing proofs of this result are model specific. In this paper, a general proof strategy is proposed for showing that a strategy‐proof social choice function satisfies the tops‐only property when everyone has the same set of admissible preferences.     

Disaggregation of excess demand and comparative statics with incomplete markets and nominal assets

Summary. We prove that locally, Walras' law and homogeneity characterize the structure of market excess demand functions when financial markets are incomplete and assets' returns are nominal. The method of proof is substantially different from all existing arguments as the properties of individual demand are also different. We show that this result has important implications and is part of a more general result that excess demand is an essentially arbitrary function not just of prices, but also of the exogenous parameters of the economy as asset returns, preferences, and endowments. Thus locally the equilibrium manifold, relating equilibrium prices to these parameters has also no structure. Received: September 17, 1996; revised version: November 7, 1997     

Stable Assignment of Public Facilities under Congestion

We study the problem of locating multiple public facilities when each member of society has to be assigned to exactly one of these facilities. Individuals' preferences are assumed to be single‐peaked over the interval of possible locations and negatively affected by congestion. We characterize strategy‐proof, efficient, and stable allocation rules when agents have to be partitioned between two groups of users and discuss the normative content of the stability property. Finally we prove that when more than two groups have to be formed, even with common information on the distribution of the peaks, there is no strategy‐proof, efficient, and stable allocation rule.     

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.     

Inducing risk preferences in multi-stage multi-agent laboratory experiments

Though there has been some debate over the practical efficacy of using binary lotteries for controlling risk preferences in experimental environments, the question of its theoretical validity within the contexts it is often used, namely multi-stage multi-agent settings, has not been addressed. Whilst the original proof of its validity featured a single-agent single-stage context, its practical use has seen a wide range of implementations. Practitioners have implicitly assumed that whenever the setting and form of implementation they have chosen deviates from the original single-agent single-period proof, it remains theoretically valid. There has been virtually no debate in the practitioner literature on the theoretical validity of binary lotteries in a more general context, or on whether the form of implementation matters. The current article addresses these questions, establishes limitations on validity and suggests some design principles for future implementation of binary lotteries for the purpose of controlling risk preferences.     

Three brief proofs of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem

Summary. Arrows original proof of his impossibility theorem proceeded in two steps: showing the existence of a decisive voter, and then showing that a decisive voter is a dictator. Barbera replaced the decisive voter with the weaker notion of a pivotal voter, thereby shortening the first step, but complicating the second step. I give three brief proofs, all of which turn on replacing the decisive/pivotal voter with an extremely pivotal voter (a voter who by unilaterally changing his vote can move some alternative from the bottom of the social ranking to the top), thereby simplifying both steps in Arrows proof. My first proof is the most straightforward, and the second uses Condorcet preferences (which are transformed into each other by moving the bottom alternative to the top). The third proof proceeds by reinterpreting Step 1 of the first proof as saying that all social decisions are made the same way (neutrality).Received: 9 July 2001, Revised: 2 September 2004, JEL Classification Numbers: D7, D70, D71.John Geanakoplos: I wish to thank Ken Arrow, Chris Avery, Don Brown, Ben Polak, Herb Scarf, Chris Shannon, Lin Zhou, and especially Eric Maskin for very helpful comments and advice. I was motivated to think of reproving Arrows theorem when I undertook to teach it to George Zettler, a mathematician friend. After I presented this paper at MIT, a graduate student there named Luis Ubeda-Rives told me he had worked out the same neutrality argument as I give in my third proof while he was in Spain nine years ago. He said he was anxious to publish on his own and not jointly, so I encourage the reader to consult his forthcoming working paper. The proofs appearing here appeared in my 1996 CFDP working paper. Proofs 2 and 3 originally used Mays notation, which I have dropped on the advice of Chris Avery.     

Ordinal Efficiency and the Polyhedral Separating Hyperplane Theorem

We study problems in which each of finitely many agents must be allocated a single object, based on the agents' rankings of pure outcomes. A random allocation is ordinally efficient if it is not ordinally dominated in the sense of there being another random assignment that gives each agent a first order stochastically dominant distribution of objects. We show that any ordinally efficient random assignment maximizes the sum of expected utilities for some vector of vNM utility functions that are consistent with the given ordinal preferences. One method of proof uses a new version of the separating hyperplane theorem for polyhedra. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C78, D61.     

Nash Equilibrium and Welfare Optimality

If A is a set of social alternatives, a social choice rule (SCR) assigns a subset of A to each potential profile of individuals' preferences over A , where the subset is interpreted as the set of "welfare optima". A game form (or "mechanism") implements the social choice rule if, for any potential profile of preferences, (i) any welfare optimum can arise as a Nash equilibrium of the game form (implying, in particular, that a Nash equilibrium exists) and, (ii) all Nash equilibria are welfare optimal. The main result of this paper establishes that any SCR that satisfies two properties—monotonicity and no veto power—can be implemented by a game form if there are three or more individuals. The proof is constructive.     

Bargaining, coalitions and competition

We study a Gale-like matching model in a large exchange economy, in which trade takes place through non-cooperative bargaining in coalitions of finite size. Under essentially the same conditions of core equivalence, we show that the strategic equilibrium outcomes of our model coincide with the Walrasian allocations of the economy. Our method of proof makes use of the theory of the core. With respect to previous work, our positive implementation result applies to a substantially larger class of economies: the model relaxes differentiability and convexity of preferences, and also admits an arbitrary number of divisible and indivisible goods.     

Voting Equilibria in Multi-candidate Elections

We consider a general plurality voting game with multiple candidates, where voter preferences over candidates are exogenously given. In particular, we allow for arbitrary voter indifferences, as may arise in voting subgames of citizen-candidate or locational models of elections. We prove that the voting game admits pure strategy equilibria in undominated strategies. The proof is constructive: we exhibit an algorithm, the "best winning deviation" algorithm, that produces such an equilibrium in finite time. A byproduct of the algorithm is a simple story for how voters might learn to coordinate on such an equilibrium.