IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/col/000090/015462.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementación en la asignación de proyectos con las regalías en Colombia: una aproximación teórica

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Blandón Restrepo

Abstract

Este artículo estudia la implementación en la votación por mayoría que se realiza en los Órganos Colegiados de Administración y Decisión (OCAD) para elegir los proyectos a financiar con las regalías en Colombia. Los resultados muestran que la votación en los OCAD no es implementable, a menos que se incluyan ciertos supuestos sobre el tipo de preferencias de los gobernantes y el mecanismo de votación. La implementación se logra suponiendo que el gobierno central es siempre sincero en sus preferencias, que los gobiernos departamentales y municipales tienen preferencias unimodales (como en el caso en que prefieren los proyectos que se acercan más a su región) y que la primera etapa de la votación (que corresponde a la elección de los alcaldes que representan al gobierno municipal en los OCAD) se realice para votar por proyectos y no por alcaldes.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Blandón Restrepo, 2017. "Implementación en la asignación de proyectos con las regalías en Colombia: una aproximación teórica," Revista Desarrollo y Sociedad, Universidad de los Andes,Facultad de Economía, CEDE, vol. 78, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:col:000090:015462
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://economia.uniandes.edu.co/revistadys/Articulo78_6.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric Maskin, 1999. "Nash Equilibrium and Welfare Optimality," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(1), pages 23-38.
    2. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    3. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Artemov, Georgy, 2014. "An impossibility result for virtual implementation with status quo," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 380-385.
    2. Ju, Biung-Ghi, 2005. "Strategy-proof risk sharing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 225-254, February.
    3. Gabriela Scheufele & Jeff Bennett, 2013. "Effects of alternative elicitation formats in discrete choice experiments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(2), pages 214-233, April.
    4. Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris, 2019. "Information Design: A Unified Perspective," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 57(1), pages 44-95, March.
    5. Mizukami, Hideki & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi & Wakayama, Takuma, 2003. "Strategy-Proof Sharing," Working Papers 1170, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    6. Stefan Ambec & Michel Poitevin, 2016. "Decision-making in organizations: when to delegate and whom to delegate," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 20(2), pages 115-143, June.
    7. Hagen, Martin, 2019. "Collusion-proof and fair auctions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    8. Ning Neil Yu, 2013. "A one-shot proof of Arrow’s theorem and the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 1(2), pages 145-149, November.
    9. McLennan, Andrew, 2011. "Manipulation in elections with uncertain preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 370-375.
    10. Kentaro Hatsumi & Dolors Berga & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2014. "A maximal domain for strategy-proof and no-vetoer rules in the multi-object choice model," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(1), pages 153-168, February.
    11. Cato, Susumu, 2011. "Maskin monotonicity and infinite individuals," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 56-59, January.
    12. Kolmar, Martin, 1997. "Zur Effizienz nationaler Sozialversicherungssysteme in der Europäischen Union," Discussion Papers, Series II 341, University of Konstanz, Collaborative Research Centre (SFB) 178 "Internationalization of the Economy".
    13. Maskin, Eric & Sjostrom, Tomas, 2002. "Implementation theory," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare,in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 5, pages 237-288 Elsevier.
    14. Philippe Jehiel & Laurent Lamy, 2018. "A Mechanism Design Approach to the Tiebout Hypothesis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(2), pages 735-760.
    15. Monte, Daniel & Tumennasan, Norovsambuu, 2015. "Centralized allocation in multiple markets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 74-85.
    16. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2008. "Nash implementability of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 298-300, May.
    17. Pablo Amorós & Ricardo Martínez & Bernardo Moreno & M. Puy, 2012. "Deciding whether a law is constitutional, interpretable, or unconstitutional," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 1-14, March.
    18. Peleg, Bezalel & Peters, Hans, 2017. "Choosing k from m: Feasible elimination procedures reconsidered," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 254-261.
    19. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno & Antonio Nicolò, 2021. "Pairwise Justifiable Changes in Collective Choices," Working Papers 1256, Barcelona School of Economics.
    20. Mukherjee, Saptarshi & Muto, Nozomu & Ramaekers, Eve & Sen, Arunava, 2019. "Implementation in undominated strategies by bounded mechanisms: The Pareto correspondence and a generalization," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 229-243.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:col:000090:015462. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Universidad De Los Andes-Cede (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ceandco.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.