IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kea/keappr/ker-20230101-39-1-08.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strong Collusion-Proof Implementation

Author

Listed:
  • Jinwoo Kim

    (Seoul National University)

Abstract

The robustly collusion-proof (RCP) mechanism proposed by Che and Kim (2006) enables a principal to attain any payoff that could be achieved without any collusion, even when agents collude. Although the RCP mechanism is robust to various collusive arrangements that agents may devise, it relies on agents not to form certain extreme beliefs following a rejection of a collusive side contract. This paper strengthens the collusionproofness notion to be robust to such beliefs, as well as any other aspects of coalition formation and its behavior, and proposes a mechanism that implements virtually any noncollusive payoff for the principal in this considerably strong collusion-proof sense. The key issue is to guarantee the participation of agents in an RCP mechanism. The proposed mechanism achieves this situation by adding an option that each agent can exercise to protect himself against possible hold-up by his collusive partners.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinwoo Kim, 2023. "Strong Collusion-Proof Implementation," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 39, pages 241-256.
    • Handle: RePEc:kea:keappr:ker-20230101-39-1-08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://keapaper.kea.ne.kr/RePEc/kea/keappr/KER-20230101-39-1-08.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Palfrey, Thomas R. & Srivastava, Sanjay, 1991. "Efficient trading mechanisms with pre-play communication," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 17-40, October.
    2. Cremer, Jacques & McLean, Richard P, 1985. "Optimal Selling Strategies under Uncertainty for a Discriminating Monopolist When Demands Are Interdependent," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(2), pages 345-361, March.
    3. ,, 2008. "Auction design in the presence of collusion," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 3(3), September.
    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. Claude d'Aspremont & Jacques Crémer & Louis-André Gérard-Varet, 2003. "Correlation, independence, and Bayesian incentives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(2), pages 281-310, October.
    2. Dawen Meng & Guoqiang Tian & Zhe Yang, 2017. "Two-agent collusion-proof implementation with correlation and arbitrage," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 21(3), pages 177-229, September.
    3. Meng, Dawen & Tian, Guoqiang, 2014. "Collusion-Proof Mechanism Design in Two-Agent Nonlinear Pricing Environments," MPRA Paper 57931, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Jeremy Bulow & Paul Klemperer, 1994. "Auctions vs. Negotiations," NBER Working Papers 4608, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Ernesto Dal Bo, 2000. "Bribing Voters," Economics Series Working Papers 39, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    6. Robert Gary‐Bobo & Yossi Spiegel, 2006. "Optimal state‐contingent regulation under limited liability," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(2), pages 431-448, June.
    7. Feess Eberhard & Walzl Markus & Schieble Michael, 2011. "Why it Pays to Conceal: On the Optimal Timing of Acquiring Verifiable Information," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 100-123, February.
    8. Qin, Cheng-Zhong & Yang, Chun-Lei, 2009. "An Explicit Approach to Modeling Finite-Order Type Spaces and Applications," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt8hq7j89k, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    9. Martin Hellwig & Felix Bierbrauer, 2009. "Public Good Provision in a Large Economy," 2009 Meeting Papers 1062, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    10. Asseyer, Andreas, 2020. "Collusion and delegation under information control," Discussion Papers 2020/3, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    11. Gärtner, Dennis L. & Schmutzler, Armin, 2009. "Merger negotiations and ex-post regret," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1636-1664, July.
    12. Giovanni Paolo Crespi & Davide Radi & Matteo Rocca, 2017. "Robust games: theory and application to a Cournot duopoly model," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 40(1), pages 177-198, November.
    13. Johannes Hörner & Stefano Lovo, 2009. "Belief-Free Equilibria in Games With Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 453-487, March.
    14. d'Aspremont, Claude & Cremer, Jacques & Gerard-Varet, Louis-Andre, 2004. "Balanced Bayesian mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 385-396, April.
    15. John Duggan & Joanne Roberts, 2002. "Implementing the Efficient Allocation of Pollution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1070-1078, September.
    16. Andreas Blume & April Mitchell Franco & Paul Heidhues, 2021. "Dynamic coordination via organizational routines," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(4), pages 1001-1047, November.
    17. Gerardi, Dino & McLean, Richard & Postlewaite, Andrew, 2009. "Aggregation of expert opinions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 339-371, March.
    18. Gorkem Celik & Dongsoo Shin & Roland Strausz, 2021. "Public good overprovision by a manipulative provider," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(2), pages 314-333, June.
    19. Sergei Severinov & Grigory Kosenok, 2004. "Individually Rational, Balanced-Budget Bayesian Mechanisms and the," 2004 Meeting Papers 633, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    20. Charles Angelucci & Antonio Russo, 2022. "Petty Corruption And Citizen Reports," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(2), pages 831-848, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Robustly Collusion-proof Implementation; Strongly Collusion-proof Implementation; Virtual Strongly Collusion-proof Implementation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Market Design
    • 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:kea:keappr:ker-20230101-39-1-08. 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: KEA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/keaaaea.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.