IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jetheo/v185y2020ics0022053118304319.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dominance of truthtelling and the lattice structure of Nash equilibria

Author

Listed:
  • Bochet, Olivier
  • Tumennasan, Norovsambuu

Abstract

Truthtelling is often viewed as focal in the direct mechanisms associated with strategy-proof decision rules. Yet many direct mechanisms also admit Nash equilibria whose outcomes differ from the one under truthtelling. We study a model that has been widely discussed in the mechanism design literature (Sprumont, 1991) and whose strategy-proof and efficient rules typically suffer from the aforementioned deficit. We show that when a rule in this class satisfies the mild additional requirement of replacement monotonicity, the set of Nash equilibrium allocations of its preference revelation game is a complete lattice with respect to the order of Pareto dominance. Furthermore, the supremum of the lattice is the one obtained under truthtelling. In other words, truthtelling Pareto dominates all other Nash equilibria. For the rich subclass of weighted uniform rules, the Nash equilibrium allocations are, in addition, strictly Pareto ranked. We discuss the tightness of the result and some possible extensions.

Suggested Citation

  • Bochet, Olivier & Tumennasan, Norovsambuu, 2020. "Dominance of truthtelling and the lattice structure of Nash equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:185:y:2020:i:c:s0022053118304319
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jet.2019.104952
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022053118304319
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jet.2019.104952?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. Thomson, William, 1997. "The Replacement Principle in Economies with Single-Peaked Preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 145-168, September.
    2. Adachi, Tsuyoshi, 2010. "The uniform rule with several commodities: A generalization of Sprumont's characterization," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 952-964, November.
    3. Toyotaka Sakai & Takuma Wakayama, 2008. "Uniform, Equal Division, and Other Envy-free Rules between the Two," ISER Discussion Paper 0723, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    4. Bochet, Olivier & İlkılıç, Rahmi & Moulin, Hervé, 2013. "Egalitarianism under earmark constraints," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(2), pages 535-562.
    5. Bochet, Olivier & Sakai, Toyotaka, 2010. "Secure implementation in allotment economies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 35-49, January.
    6. Thomson, William, 1995. "Population-Monotonic Solutions to the Problem of Fair Division When Preferences Are Single-Peaked," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 5(2), pages 229-246, March.
    7. Barbera, Salvador & Jackson, Matthew O. & Neme, Alejandro, 1997. "Strategy-Proof Allotment Rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-21, January.
    8. Ergin, Haluk & Sonmez, Tayfun, 2006. "Games of school choice under the Boston mechanism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1-2), pages 215-237, January.
    9. Sprumont, Yves, 1991. "The Division Problem with Single-Peaked Preferences: A Characterization of the Uniform Allocation Rule," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 509-519, March.
    10. Thomson William, 1994. "Consistent Solutions to the Problem of Fair Division When Preferences Are Single-Peaked," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 219-245, August.
    11. Jordi Massó & Alejandro Neme, 2004. "A maximal domain of preferences for strategy-proof, efficient, and simple rules in the division problem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 23(2), pages 187-206, October.
    12. Moulin, Herve, 1999. "Rationing a Commodity along Fixed Paths," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 41-72, January.
    13. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2016. "Group Strategy-Proofness in Private Good Economies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(4), pages 1073-1099, April.
    14. H. Moulin, 1980. "On strategy-proofness and single peakedness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 437-455, January.
    15. John William Hatfield & Paul R. Milgrom, 2005. "Matching with Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 913-935, September.
    16. William Thomson, 1997. "The replacement principle in economies with indivisible goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(1), pages 57-66.
    17. Mizukami, Hideki & Wakayama, Takuma, 2007. "Dominant strategy implementation in economic environments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 307-325, August.
    18. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    19. Thomson, William, 1993. "The replacement principle in public good economies with single-peaked preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 31-36.
    20. Adachi, Hiroyuki, 2000. "On a characterization of stable matchings," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 43-49, July.
    21. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander L. Brown & Daniel G. Stephenson & Rodrigo A. Velez, 2024. "Testing the simplicity of strategy-proof mechanisms," Papers 2404.11883, arXiv.org.
    2. Yoshio Sano & Ping Zhan, 2021. "Extended Random Assignment Mechanisms on a Family of Good Sets," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 1-30, December.

    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. Gustavo Bergantiños & Jordi Massó & Inés Moreno de Barreda & Alejandro Neme, 2015. "Stable partitions in many division problems: the proportional and the sequential dictator solutions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(2), pages 227-250, September.
    2. Juan Perote Peña, 2003. "Solidarity in Terms of Reciprocity," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2003/16, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    3. Erlanson, Albin & Flores-Szwagrzak, Karol, 2015. "Strategy-proof assignment of multiple resources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 137-162.
    4. Barbera, Salvador & Jackson, Matthew O. & Neme, Alejandro, 1997. "Strategy-Proof Allotment Rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-21, January.
    5. Rebelo, S., 1997. "On the Determinant of Economic Growth," RCER Working Papers 443, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    6. William Thomson, 2016. "Non-bossiness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(3), pages 665-696, October.
    7. Shuhei Morimoto & Shigehiro Serizawa & Stephen Ching, 2013. "A characterization of the uniform rule with several commodities and agents," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 871-911, March.
    8. Gustavo Bergantiños & Jordi Massó & Alejandro Neme, 2021. "Individually rational rules for the division problem when the number of units to be allotted is endogenous," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(2), pages 376-401, April.
    9. Moulin, Hervé, 2017. "One dimensional mechanism design," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), May.
    10. Takuma Wakayama, 2017. "Bribe-proofness for single-peaked preferences: characterizations and maximality-of-domains results," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(2), pages 357-385, August.
    11. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Parag A. Pathak & Alvin E. Roth & Tayfun Sönmez, 2006. "Changing the Boston School Choice Mechanism," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 639, Boston College Department of Economics.
    12. Karol Flores-Szwagrzak, 2017. "Efficient, fair, and strategy-proof (re)allocation under network constraints," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 109-131, January.
    13. Toyotaka Sakai & Takuma Wakayama, 2012. "Strategy-proofness, tops-only, and the uniform rule," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(3), pages 287-301, March.
    14. Ruben Juarez & Jung S. You, 2019. "Optimality of the uniform rule under single-peaked preferences," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(1), pages 27-36, May.
    15. Kazuhiko Hashimoto & Takuma Wakayama, 2021. "Fair reallocation in economies with single-peaked preferences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(3), pages 773-785, September.
    16. James Schummer, 1999. "Almost-dominant Strategy Implementation," Discussion Papers 1278, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    17. Javier Perote Peña & Juan Perote Peña, 2003. "A Social Choice Trade-off Between Alternative Fairness Concepts: Solidarity versus Flexibility," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2003/10, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    18. Bergantiños, Gustavo & Massó, Jordi & Neme, Alejandro, 2015. "The division problem under constraints," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 56-77.
    19. Gustavo Bergantiños & Jordi Massó & Alejandro Neme, 2012. "The division problem with maximal capacity constraints," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 29-57, March.
    20. Erlanson, Albin & Szwagrzak, Karol, 2013. "Strategy-Proof Package Assignment," Working Papers 2013:43, Lund University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Sequential allotment rules; Strategy-proofness; Truthtelling; Lattice; Pareto dominance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    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:jetheo:v:185:y:2020:i:c:s0022053118304319. 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/inca/622869 .

    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.