IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jecomi/v12y2024i8p211-d1460287.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resource Allocation with Karma Mechanisms—A Review

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin Riehl

    (Traffic Engineering Group, Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, ETH Zurich, Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Anastasios Kouvelas

    (Traffic Engineering Group, Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, ETH Zurich, Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Michail A. Makridis

    (Traffic Engineering Group, Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, ETH Zurich, Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland)

Abstract

Monetary markets serve as established resource allocation mechanisms, typically achieving efficient solutions with limited information. However, they are susceptible to market failures, particularly under the presence of public goods, externalities, or inequality of economic power. Moreover, in many resource-allocating contexts, money faces social, ethical, and legal constraints. Consequently, artificial currencies and non-monetary markets are increasingly explored, with Karma emerging as a notable concept. Karma, a non-tradeable, resource-inherent currency for prosumer resources, operates on the principles of contribution and consumption of specific resources. It embodies fairness, near incentive compatibility, Pareto-efficiency, robustness to population heterogeneity, and can incentivize a reduction in resource scarcity. The literature on Karma is scattered across disciplines, varies in scope, and lacks conceptual clarity and coherence. Thus, this study undertakes a comprehensive review of the Karma mechanism, systematically comparing its resource allocation applications and elucidating overlooked mechanism design elements. Through a systematic mapping study, this review situates Karma within its literature context, offers a structured design parameter framework, and develops a road map for future research directions.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin Riehl & Anastasios Kouvelas & Michail A. Makridis, 2024. "Resource Allocation with Karma Mechanisms—A Review," Economies, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-27, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jecomi:v:12:y:2024:i:8:p:211-:d:1460287
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/12/8/211/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/12/8/211/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric Budish, 2011. "The Combinatorial Assignment Problem: Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(6), pages 1061-1103.
    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. Erlanson, Albin & Szwagrzak, Karol, 2013. "Strategy-Proof Package Assignment," Working Papers 2013:43, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    3. Aygün, Orhan & Turhan, Bertan, 2021. "How to De-reserve Reserves," ISU General Staff Papers 202103100800001123, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Parag A. Pathak & Alex Rees-Jones & Tayfun Sönmez, 2020. "Immigration Lottery Design: Engineered and Coincidental Consequences of H-1B Reforms," NBER Working Papers 26767, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Ehlers, Lars & Hafalir, Isa E. & Yenmez, M. Bumin & Yildirim, Muhammed A., 2014. "School choice with controlled choice constraints: Hard bounds versus soft bounds," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 648-683.
    6. Julien Combe & Vladyslav Nora & Olivier Tercieux, 2021. "Dynamic assignment without money: Optimality of spot mechanisms," Working Papers 2021-11, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    7. Luofeng Liao & Christian Kroer, 2024. "Statistical Inference and A/B Testing in Fisher Markets and Paced Auctions," Papers 2406.15522, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    8. Miralles, Antonio & Pycia, Marek, 2021. "Foundations of pseudomarkets: Walrasian equilibria for discrete resources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    9. Eric Budish & Gérard P. Cachon & Judd B. Kessler & Abraham Othman, 2017. "Course Match: A Large-Scale Implementation of Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes for Combinatorial Allocation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 314-336, April.
    10. Parag A. Pathak & Tayfun Sönmez & M. Utku Ünver & M. Bumin Yenmez, 2024. "Fair Allocation of Vaccines, Ventilators and Antiviral Treatments: Leaving No Ethical Value Behind in Healthcare Rationing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(6), pages 3999-4036, June.
    11. Anna Bogomolnaia & Hervé Moulin, 2023. "Guarantees in Fair Division: General or Monotone Preferences," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 160-176, February.
    12. Dur, Umut Mert & Wiseman, Thomas, 2019. "School choice with neighbors," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 101-109.
    13. Romero-Medina, Antonio & Triossi, Matteo, 2024. "Strategic priority-based course allocation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    14. Eun Jeong Heo & Vikram Manjunath, 2017. "Implementation in stochastic dominance Nash equilibria," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 5-30, January.
    15. Antonio Miralles & Marek Pycia, 2017. "Large vs. Continuum Assignment Economies: Efficiency and Envy-Freeness," Working Papers 950, Barcelona School of Economics.
    16. Kojima, Fuhito, 2013. "Efficient resource allocation under multi-unit demand," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-14.
    17. Condorelli, Daniele, 2013. "Market and non-market mechanisms for the optimal allocation of scarce resources," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 582-591.
    18. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Holzman, Ron & Moulin, Hervé, 2023. "On guarantees, vetoes and random dictators," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(1), January.
    19. Mithun Chakraborty & Erel Segal-Halevi & Warut Suksompong, 2021. "Weighted Fairness Notions for Indivisible Items Revisited," Papers 2112.04166, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    20. Eric Budish & Judd B. Kessler, 2022. "Can Market Participants Report Their Preferences Accurately (Enough)?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1107-1130, February.

    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:gam:jecomi:v:12:y:2024:i:8:p:211-:d:1460287. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.