The Evolution of Cost-based Pricing Rules in Britain: An institutionalist perspective

This paper illustrates how an institutionalist perspective can help us understand the development of cost-based pricing rules in Britain. It explores the historical development of rule-based procedures, such as absorption costing and the cost allocation systems used by trade associations and government departments in the first half of the last century. The intention is to identify the institutional rationalities that underpinned the evolution of these supposedly 'irrational' practices. A case study of British Printers in the early years of the 20th century illustrates how a rule-based system, collectively designed and built around costing knowledge was used to promote stability and certainty in a chaotic market. Similarly, the cost-based rules introduced and administered by the British Government during the First and Second World Wars were used to control overpricing and profiteering, and hence cost measurement was seen as instrumental in bringing stability and control to a market that was operating in an apparently unacceptable way. In the post-war period, however, similar cost-based pricing rules and cost allocations procedures were implicated in a variety of restrictive practices.     

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.     

A Risk‐Dominant Allocation: Maximizing Coalition Stability

This paper presents a rule to allocate a coalition’s worth for superadditive games with positive externalities. The allocation rule awards each member their outside payoff, plus an equal share of the surplus. The resulting allocation maximizes coalition stability. Stable coalitions are Strong Nash equilibria since no subset of members has an incentive to leave. Similarly, no subset of non‐members has an incentive to join a stable coalition if the game is concave in this region. The allocation is risk‐dominant. All stable coalitions are robust to the maximum probability of 50% that players’ deviate from their individual best‐responses. The paper compares the allocation to the Shapley value and the Nash bargaining solution, and illustrates why these traditional rules result in small coalitions when applied to issues such as international environmental agreements.     

Weak monotonicity and Bayes–Nash incentive compatibility

An allocation rule is called Bayes–Nash incentive compatible, if there exists a payment rule, such that truthful reports of agents' types form a Bayes–Nash equilibrium in the direct revelation mechanism consisting of the allocation rule and the payment rule. This paper provides a characterization of Bayes–Nash incentive compatible allocation rules in social choice settings where agents have multi-dimensional types, quasi-linear utility functions and interdependent valuations. The characterization is derived by constructing complete directed graphs on agents' type spaces with cost of manipulation as lengths of edges. Weak monotonicity of the allocation rule corresponds to the condition that all 2-cycles in these graphs have non-negative length. For the case that type spaces are convex and the valuation for each outcome is a linear function in the agent's type, we show that weak monotonicity of the allocation rule together with an integrability condition is a necessary and sufficient condition for Bayes–Nash incentive compatibility.     

Weak monotonicity and Bayes–Nash incentive compatibility

An allocation rule is called Bayes–Nash incentive compatible, if there exists a payment rule, such that truthful reports of agents' types form a Bayes–Nash equilibrium in the direct revelation mechanism consisting of the allocation rule and the payment rule. This paper provides a characterization of Bayes–Nash incentive compatible allocation rules in social choice settings where agents have multi-dimensional types, quasi-linear utility functions and interdependent valuations. The characterization is derived by constructing complete directed graphs on agents' type spaces with cost of manipulation as lengths of edges. Weak monotonicity of the allocation rule corresponds to the condition that all 2-cycles in these graphs have non-negative length. For the case that type spaces are convex and the valuation for each outcome is a linear function in the agent's type, we show that weak monotonicity of the allocation rule together with an integrability condition is a necessary and sufficient condition for Bayes–Nash incentive compatibility.     

Sharing the cost of redundant items

We ask how to share the cost of finitely many public goods (items) among users with different needs: some smaller subsets of items are enough to serve the needs of each user, yet the cost of all items must be covered, even if this entails inefficiently paying for redundant items. Typical examples are network connectivity problems when an existing (possibly inefficient) network must be maintained.We axiomatize a family cost ratios based on simple liability indices, one for each agent and for each item, measuring the relative worth of this item across agents, and generating cost allocation rules additive in costs.     

Regional burden sharing of GHG mitigation policies in a decentralized federation

The distribution of the burden of cost of GHG mitigation policies is a contentious issue. This is particularly true among regional jurisdictions within a federal country with decentralized power. The regional allocation of emissions permits could hinder the political feasibility of national GHG mitigation policies. We build a multi-region computable general equilibrium (CGE) model to assess the implications of different burden sharing rules in a hypothetical national GHG abatement policy with a market-based instrument. In addition to assessing the impacts of regional permit allocation rules that entail inter-regional transfers of wealth, we consider a particular emissions allocation scheme, called ‘no prior entitlement’ (NPE), that avoids such transfers. The insights derived from the simulations suggest that the NPE policy avoids the politically contentious issues of inter-regional transfers of scarcity rents. Its welfare impact lies between those in the entitlement-based permit allocation schemes.     

Production-inventory games: A new class of totally balanced combinatorial optimization games

In this paper we introduce a new class of cooperative games that arise from production-inventory problems. Several agents have to cover their demand over a finite time horizon and shortages are allowed. Each agent has its own unit production, inventory-holding and backlogging cost. Cooperation among agents is given by sharing production processes and warehouse facilities: agents in a coalition produce with the cheapest production cost and store with the cheapest inventory cost. We prove that the resulting cooperative game is totally balanced and the Owen set reduces to a singleton: the Owen point. Based on this type of allocation we find a population monotonic allocation scheme for this class of games. Finally, we point out the relationship of the Owen point with other well-known allocation rules such as the nucleolus and the Shapley value.     

Allocating Tradable Permits on the Basis of Market Price to Achieve Cost Effectiveness

It is a well known result that distributional constraints can lead to an imperfectly competitive permit market where the emission target is no longer met at least cost. In this paper, we suggest an allocation rule for tradable permits which can handle this problem. If the permit allocation is dependent on the market price for permits, this allocation rule can achieve both cost effectiveness and meet specific requirements for cost distribution across agents.     

Market Entry Regulation and International Competition*

We analyze a non‐cooperative two‐country game where each government decides whether to allow free market entry of firms or to regulate market access. We show that a Pareto‐efficient allocation may result in equilibrium. In particular, if the cost difference between home and foreign production is “significant,” production will be located in the cost‐efficient country exclusively; and if this cost difference is even “substantial,” the induced allocation is also Pareto efficient. Only if the cost difference is “insignificant,” production may take place in both countries and the allocation is inefficient.     

Cost sharing with multiple technologies

We study cost sharing problems where gains from cooperation can come from the presence of other agents, such as when agents share their technologies. A simple model is built, where economies of scale are eliminated in order to study this effect. We use as the key axiom the property that, if an agent does not improve the technology of any coalition he joins, he should not get any part of the gain from cooperation. With properties of linearity and symmetry, this axiom characterizes a well-defined set of rules. From this set, we propose a rule derived from the familiar Shapley value. We show that it is the only rule in that set satisfying an upper-limit property on individual cost allocations or a monotonicity property when technology improves. We also derive a distinct rule using a property that ensures that no coalition has an incentive to manipulate the individual demands of its members.     

Strategy Proof Uniform Effort Sharing Schemes For Transfrontier Pollution Problems

Uniform effort sharing rules for transfrontier pollution problems, like the popular equal percentage reduction arrangement, do not result in a cost efficient allocation of emission abatement efforts. In addition, they may violate voluntary participation constraints if the uniform effort level is decided upon by means of ordinary majority vote. In contrast to ordinary majority vote, I consider in this paper the so-called conservative mechanism by Moulin (1994) which picks the smallest revealed effort level in stead of the median. The conservative mechanism always respects a weak participation constraint. Moreover, it is coalitionally strategy proof meaning that no individual player, or group of players, can achieve a better outcome by misrepresenting its preferences for environmental quality. In order to remedy the cost inefficiency of the equal percentage arrangements, I propose to apply the conservative mechanism to the choice of a uniform emission tax rate. Simulations for the greenhouse effect indicate that the latter mechanism does considerably better than the traditional equal percentage arrangement.     

Cost sharing with multiple technologies

We study cost sharing problems where gains from cooperation can come from the presence of other agents, such as when agents share their technologies. A simple model is built, where economies of scale are eliminated in order to study this effect. We use as the key axiom the property that, if an agent does not improve the technology of any coalition he joins, he should not get any part of the gain from cooperation. With properties of linearity and symmetry, this axiom characterizes a well-defined set of rules. From this set, we propose a rule derived from the familiar Shapley value. We show that it is the only rule in that set satisfying an upper-limit property on individual cost allocations or a monotonicity property when technology improves. We also derive a distinct rule using a property that ensures that no coalition has an incentive to manipulate the individual demands of its members.     

“Almost” subsidy-free spatial pricing in a multi-dimensional setting

Consider a population of citizens uniformly spread over the entire plane. The population faces a problem of locating public facilities financed by its users, who face an idiosyncratic private access cost to the facility. We show that, under mild assumptions, an external intervention that covers a tiny portion of the facility cost is sufficient to guarantee secession-proofness or no cross-subsidization, where no group of individuals is charged more than the cost incurred if it had acted on its own. Moreover, we demonstrate that in this case the Rawlsian access pricing is the only mechanism that rules out secession threats.     

Collective Choice in the Commons: Experimental Results on Proposed Allocation Rules and Votes

We analyse and empirically examine a multi-level common-pool resource (CPR) game consisting of a collective-choice level game and an operational-level game. In the collective-choice game, participants anonymously propose allocation rules to be used in the operational game and vote anonymously on the proposed rules. Majority and unanimity rules are investigated. Our major finding is that both types of voting rules substantially increase efficiency relative to a baseline with no opportunity for collective choice, but the distributional consequences of the rules differ. To understand the process by which efficiency is improved better, we examine four predictive theories related to proposals, votes, and outcomes.     

Cost monotonicity, consistency and minimum cost spanning tree games

We propose a new cost allocation rule for minimum cost spanning tree games. The new rule is a core selection and also satisfies cost monotonicity. We also give characterisation theorems for the new rule as well as the much-studied Bird allocation. We show that the principal difference between these two rules is in terms of their consistency properties.     

Sequential communication with ex post participation constraints

This paper examines an informed principal-agent game with ex post participation constraints for the agent. It shows that the players do not lose by communicating in turn among themselves rather than simultaneously if and only if the principal communicates first. It then considers every Bayesian incentive compatible allocation rules that assign non-negative payoffs for one player in a bilateral asymmetric information framework. It provides necessary and sufficient conditions for sequential communication to be as efficient as simultaneous communication in implementing these allocation rules when the player with unbounded payoffs moves first.     

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.     

Joint misrepresentation with bribes

We study the problem of assigning objects to buyers. Monetary transfers are allowed. Each buyer’s preference space contains, but is not limited to, the linear additively separable preferences. A rule maps each preference profile to an allocation. We are concerned about the possibility that a group of buyers may engage in the following kind of manipulation: They make side payments internally and then carry out a joint misrepresentation. A rule is strongly group strategy-proof if no group can gain by engaging in such operations. We also consider several other appealing requirements. We find that the posted-price rules are the only one that satisfies non-triviality, non-imposition, envy-freeness, and strong group strategy-proofness.     

Efficient contract enforcement

We study how the efficient choice of contract enforcement interacts with the efficient allocation of capital in a simple production economy. Contract enforcement makes trade possible but requires an aggregate investment of capital that is no longer available for production. In such an economy, more dispersion in ex-ante marginal products makes it optimal to invest more resources in enforcement. Furthermore, implementing the optimal allocation requires a specific distribution of the cost for enforcement across agents that is not monotonic and results in a redistribution of endowments. At the efficient solution, agents at the bottom of the endowment distribution benefit the most from investment in enforcement and these investments lead to a reduction in consumption and income inequality.