IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v98y2014icp125-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reinterpreting King Solomon's problem: Malice and mechanism design

Author

Listed:
  • Guha, Brishti

Abstract

I argue for an alternative interpretation of King Solomon's problem in terms of one of the two claimants being “malicious”. A “malicious” claimant places no intrinsic value on the object but derives utility from depriving the rival claimant. This new interpretation permits a simpler solution than those considered in the literature; I derive a mechanism that induces truthful revelation where the equilibrium involves a single round of elimination of weakly dominated strategies, and no monetary transfers. I consider extensions which allow for the malicious claimant to also place some low but positive intrinsic valuation on the object; I also discuss the possibility of two-sided malice, and provide examples of several real-life contexts to which the mechanism or its extensions are applicable.

Suggested Citation

  • Guha, Brishti, 2014. "Reinterpreting King Solomon's problem: Malice and mechanism design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 125-132.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:98:y:2014:i:c:p:125-132
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.12.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268113003120
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.12.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klaus Abbink & Benedikt Herrmann, 2011. "The Moral Costs Of Nastiness," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(2), pages 631-633, April.
    2. Ronald Bosman & Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Frans Winden, 2006. "Exploring group decision making in a power-to-take experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 35-51, April.
    3. Abbink, Klaus & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim, 2009. "The pleasure of being nasty," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 306-308, December.
    4. Perry, Motty & Reny, Philip J., 1999. "A General Solution to King Solomon's Dilemma," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 279-285, January.
    5. Myerson, Roger B. & Satterthwaite, Mark A., 1983. "Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 265-281, April.
    6. Georgy Artemov, 2006. "Imminent Nash Implementation as a Solution to King Solomon's Dilemma," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(14), pages 1-8.
    7. Bag, Parimal Kanti & Sabourian, Hamid, 2005. "Distributing awards efficiently: More on King Solomon's problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 43-58, October.
    8. Cheng-Zhong Qin & Chun-Lei Yang, 2009. "Make a guess: a robust mechanism for King Solomon’s dilemma," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(2), pages 259-268, May.
    9. Daniel J. Zizzo & Andrew J. Oswald, 2001. "Are People Willing to Pay to Reduce Others'Incomes?," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 63-64, pages 39-65.
    10. Glazer, Jacob & Ma, Ching-To Albert, 1989. "Efficient allocation of a "prize"-King Solomon's dilemma," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 222-233, September.
    11. Max Albert & Vanessa Mertins, 2008. "Participation and Decision Making: A Three-person Power-to-take Experiment," MAGKS Papers on Economics 200805, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    12. repec:adr:anecst:y:2001:i:63-64:p:03 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2006:i:14:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Olszewski, Wojciech, 2003. "A simple and general solution to King Solomon's problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 315-318, February.
    15. Ronald Bosman & Frans van Winden, 2002. "Emotional Hazard in a Power-to-take Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(476), pages 147-169, January.
    16. Steven R. Beckman & Buhong Zheng & John P. Formby & W. James Smith, 2002. "Envy, malice and Pareto efficiency: An experimental examination," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(2), pages 349-367.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guha, Brishti, 2019. "Malice and patience in Rubinstein bargaining," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 264-270.
    2. Guha, Brishti, 2018. "Malice in the Rubinstein bargaining game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-86.
    3. Guha, Brishti, 2016. "Malicious litigation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 24-32.
    4. Brishti Guha, 2018. "Malice in auctions and commitments to cancel," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(3), pages 1623-1631.
    5. Brishti Guha, 2017. "Testing for Malice," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(1), pages 327-335.

    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. Brishti Guha, 2017. "Testing for Malice," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(1), pages 327-335.
    2. Guha, Brishti, 2018. "Malice in the Rubinstein bargaining game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-86.
    3. Gangadharan, Lata & Grossman, Philip J. & Molle, Mana Komai & Vecci, Joe, 2019. "Impact of social identity and inequality on antisocial behaviour," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 199-215.
    4. Guha, Brishti, 2016. "Malicious litigation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 24-32.
    5. Guha, Brishti, 2019. "Malice and patience in Rubinstein bargaining," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 264-270.
    6. Philip J. Grossman & Mana Komai, 2012. "The Economic Impact of Anti-Social Preferences in a Multi-Period Game with Attacks and Insurance," Monash Economics Working Papers 21-12, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    7. Guha, Brishti, 2019. "Malice in pretrial negotiations," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 25-33.
    8. Brishti Guha, 2018. "Malice in auctions and commitments to cancel," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(3), pages 1623-1631.
    9. Elbittar, Alexander & Di Giannatale, Sonia, 2017. "“Neither I nor you shall have him”: An experimental study of the King Solomon's Dilemma," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 55-69.
    10. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Alexander Ritschel, 2018. "The Big Robber Game," ECON - Working Papers 291, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    11. Cheng-Zhong Qin & Chun-Lei Yang, 2009. "Make a guess: a robust mechanism for King Solomon’s dilemma," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(2), pages 259-268, May.
    12. Bag, Parimal Kanti & Sabourian, Hamid, 2005. "Distributing awards efficiently: More on King Solomon's problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 43-58, October.
    13. Bigoni, Maria & Bortolotti, Stefania & Nas Özen, Efşan, 2021. "Economic polarization and antisocial behavior: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 387-401.
    14. Fehr, Dietmar, 2018. "Is increasing inequality harmful? Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 123-134.
    15. Alexandros Karakostas & Nhu Tran & Daniel John Zizzo, 2022. "Experimental Insights on Anti-Social Behavior: Two Meta-Analyses," Discussion Papers Series 658, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    16. Gebretsadik, Kidanemariam Abreha, 2019. "Irrigation Water Scarcity and Antisocial Behavior: Experimental Evidence from Communal Irrigation Water," Working Paper Series 5-2019, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, School of Economics and Business.
    17. Christian Thöni, 2014. "Inequality aversion and antisocial punishment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 529-545, April.
    18. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David, 2019. "Using ethical dilemmas to predict antisocial choices with real payoff consequences: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 195-215.
    19. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David & Peterle, Emmanuel, 2018. "Discrimination as favoritism: The private benefits and social costs of in-group favoritism in an experimental labor market," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 220-236.
    20. David Schüller & Thorsten Upmann, 2013. "When Focal Points are Out of Focus: A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Come Dine with Me," CESifo Working Paper Series 4138, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    King Solomon's problem; Mechanism design; Malice; Elimination of dominated strategies;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:jeborg:v:98:y:2014:i:c:p:125-132. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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.