IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v22y2013i2d10.1007_s10726-011-9263-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic Behavior in Contested-Pile Methods for Fair Division of Indivisible Items

Author

Listed:
  • Rudolf Vetschera

    (University of Vienna)

  • D. Marc Kilgour

    (Wilfrid Laurier University)

Abstract

Most fair-division procedures are modeled on cake-cutting procedures such as “I cut, you choose”. The inputs are players’ choices, which are assumed to reflect preferences but not fully reveal them; the output is a division that is in some sense fair. However, it seems likely that decision makers sometimes behave insincerely, that is, they make choices that are not consistent with their true preferences. For example, strategic—as opposed to sincere—behavior may be aimed at taking advantage of information about an opponent’s preferences, which most fair-division procedures assume is not available. We focus on contested-pile procedures, a class of procedures for the fair division of indivisible items between two players, related to the alternation procedures proposed by Brams and Taylor (The win-win solution: guaranteeing fair shares to everybody. W. W. Norton, New York, 1999). We use computational models to assess the performance of these procedures under both sincere and strategic behavior. We show how available information about preferences can interact with strategy to shape outcomes. Our results indicate that strategic behavior, although it often changes outcomes, may not make them less efficient or less fair. Furthermore, our investigation suggests that how information about the opponents preference is processed does not have a strong impact, in that a conceptually simple strategy often outperforms a more elaborate one.

Suggested Citation

  • Rudolf Vetschera & D. Marc Kilgour, 2013. "Strategic Behavior in Contested-Pile Methods for Fair Division of Indivisible Items," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 299-319, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:22:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-011-9263-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-011-9263-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-011-9263-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-011-9263-5?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. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    2. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour & Christian Klamler, 2012. "The undercut procedure: an algorithm for the envy-free division of indivisible items," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 615-631, July.
    3. Chavas, Jean-Paul, 2008. "On fair allocations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 258-272, October.
    4. Miller, John H. & Butts, Carter T. & Rode, David, 2002. "Communication and cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 179-195, February.
    5. Steven J. Brams & Paul H. Edelman & Peter C. Fishburn, 2003. "Fair Division Of Indivisible Items," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 147-180, September.
    6. Siang Yew Chong & Jan Humble & Graham Kendall & Jiawei Li & Xin Yao, 2007. "The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma: 20 Years On," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma 20 Years On, chapter 1, pages 1-21, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    8. Steven J. Brams & Peter C. Fishburn, 2000. "Fair division of indivisible items between two people with identical preferences: Envy-freeness, Pareto-optimality, and equity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 17(2), pages 247-267.
    9. Robert Axelrod, 1980. "Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 24(1), pages 3-25, March.
    10. Ronald S. Burt, 1999. "Private Games are too Dangerous," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 311-341, December.
    11. Dorothea Herreiner & Clemens Puppe, 2002. "A simple procedure for finding equitable allocations of indivisible goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(2), pages 415-430.
    12. Janssen, Marco A., 2008. "Evolution of cooperation in a one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma based on recognition of trustworthy and untrustworthy agents," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 458-471, March.
    13. Dall'Aglio, Marco & Mosca, Raffaele, 2007. "How to allocate hard candies fairly," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 218-237, December.
    14. Robert Axelrod, 1980. "More Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 24(3), pages 379-403, September.
    15. Siang Yew Chong & Jan Humble & Graham Kendall & Jiawei Li & Xin Yao, 2007. "Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma and Evolutionary Game Theory," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma 20 Years On, chapter 2, pages 23-62, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Holland, John H & Miller, John H, 1991. "Artificial Adaptive Agents in Economic Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 365-371, May.
    17. Steven J. Brams & Daniel L. King, 2005. "Efficient Fair Division," Rationality and Society, , vol. 17(4), pages 387-421, November.
    18. Steven E. Phelan & Richard J. Arend & Darryl A. Seale, 2005. "Using an Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma with Exit Option to Study Alliance Behavior: Results of a Tournament and Simulation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 339-356, December.
    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. Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc & Klamler, Christian, 2013. "Two-Person Fair Division of Indivisible Items: An Efficient, Envy-Free Algorithm," MPRA Paper 47400, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Rudolf Vetschera & D. Kilgour, 2014. "Fair division of indivisible items between two players: design parameters for Contested Pile methods," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 547-572, April.

    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. Eve Ramaekers, 2013. "Fair allocation of indivisible goods: the two-agent case," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(2), pages 359-380, July.
    2. RAMAEKERS, Eve, 2010. "Fair allocation of indivisible goods among two agents," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2010087, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    3. Dall'Aglio, Marco & Mosca, Raffaele, 2007. "How to allocate hard candies fairly," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 218-237, December.
    4. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour & Christian Klamler, 2017. "Maximin Envy-Free Division of Indivisible Items," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 115-131, January.
    5. Haris Aziz, 2016. "A generalization of the AL method for fair allocation of indivisible objects," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 4(2), pages 307-324, October.
    6. Carpenter, Jeffrey P., 2007. "Punishing free-riders: How group size affects mutual monitoring and the provision of public goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 31-51, July.
    7. Erik O. Kimbrough & Vernon L. Smith & Bart J. Wilson, 2008. "Historical Property Rights, Sociality, and the Emergence of Impersonal Exchange in Long-Distance Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 1009-1039, June.
    8. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour & Christian Klamler, 2012. "The undercut procedure: an algorithm for the envy-free division of indivisible items," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 615-631, July.
    9. Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc & Klamler, Christian, 2013. "Two-Person Fair Division of Indivisible Items: An Efficient, Envy-Free Algorithm," MPRA Paper 47400, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Nhan-Tam Nguyen & Dorothea Baumeister & Jörg Rothe, 2018. "Strategy-proofness of scoring allocation correspondences for indivisible goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 101-122, January.
    11. Zhang, Huanren, 2018. "Errors can increase cooperation in finite populations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 203-219.
    12. Alejandro Lee-Penagos, 2016. "Learning to Coordinate: Co-Evolution and Correlated Equilibrium," Discussion Papers 2016-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    13. Etro, Federico, 2017. "Research in economics and game theory. A 70th anniversary," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 1-7.
    14. Andreas Darmann & Christian Klamler, 2016. "Proportional Borda allocations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(3), pages 543-558, October.
    15. Murnighan, J. Keith & Wang, Long, 2016. "The social world as an experimental game," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 80-94.
    16. Brams, Steven J. & Kaplan, Todd R., 2017. "Dividing the indivisible: procedures for allocation cabinet ministries to political parties in a parlamentary system," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 340, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    17. Thomson, William, 2011. "Chapter Twenty-One - Fair Allocation Rules," 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 2, chapter 21, pages 393-506, Elsevier.
    18. Xiao, Erte & Houser, Daniel, 2009. "Avoiding the sharp tongue: Anticipated written messages promote fair economic exchange," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 393-404, June.
    19. Lucas Kruitwagen & Kaveh Madani & Ben Caldecott & Mark H. W. Workman, 2017. "Game theory and corporate governance: conditions for effective stewardship of companies exposed to climate change risks," Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 14-36, January.
    20. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour & Christian Klamler, 2022. "Two-Person Fair Division of Indivisible Items when Envy-Freeness is Impossible," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 1-23, June.

    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:spr:grdene:v:22:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-011-9263-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.