IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joecth/v13y1999i3p709-722.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategy-proofness versus efficiency for small domains of preferences over public goods

Author

Listed:
  • James Schummer

    (MEDS, Kellogg GSM, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-2001, USA)

Abstract

It has long been known that when agents have von Neumann-Morgenstern preferences over lotteries, there is an incompatibility between strategy-proofness and efficiency (Gibbard, [9]; Hylland, [12]) - a solution satisfying those properties must be dictatorial. We strengthen this result by showing that it follows from the same incompatibility on a series of much smaller domains of preferences. Specifically, we first show the incompatibility to hold on our smallest domain, in which two agents are restricted to have linear preferences over one private good and one public good produced from the private good (Kolm triangle economies). This result then implies the same incompatibility on increasingly larger domains of preferences, ending finally with the class of von Neumann-Morgenstern preferences over lotteries.

Suggested Citation

  • James Schummer, 1999. "Strategy-proofness versus efficiency for small domains of preferences over public goods," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 13(3), pages 709-722.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:13:y:1999:i:3:p:709-722
    Note: Received: February 6, 1997; revised version: January 29, 1998
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00199/papers/9013003/90130709.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Özgür Kıbrıs & İpek Tapkı, 2014. "A mechanism design approach to allocating central government funds among regional development agencies," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(3), pages 163-189, September.
    2. Rebelo, S., 1997. "On the Determinant of Economic Growth," RCER Working Papers 443, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    3. William Thomson, 2018. "On the terminology of economic design: a critical assessment and some proposals," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 22(1), pages 67-99, June.
    4. Salvador Barberà, 2010. "Strategy-proof social choice," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 828.10, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    5. Diego Moreno & María Moscoso, 2013. "Strategy-proof allocation mechanisms for economies with public goods," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(1), pages 315-336, January.
    6. Youngsub Chun & Manipushpak Mitra & Suresh Mutuswami, 2014. "Egalitarian equivalence and strategyproofness in the queueing problem," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 425-442, June.
    7. Tommy ANDERSSON & Ágnes CSEH & Lars EHLERS & Albin ERLANSON, 2018. "Organizing Time Banks : Lessons from Matching Markets," Cahiers de recherche 11-2018, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    8. Jin Li & Jingyi Xue, 2013. "Egalitarian division under Leontief Preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(3), pages 597-622, November.
    9. Schummer, James & Vohra, Rakesh V., 2002. "Strategy-proof Location on a Network," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 405-428, June.
    10. Van der Linden, Martin, 2017. "Impossibilities for strategy-proof committee selection mechanisms with vetoers," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 111-121.
    11. Manjunath, Vikram, 2016. "Fractional matching markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 321-336.
    12. Alva, Samson & Manjunath, Vikram, 2020. "The impossibility of strategy-proof, Pareto efficient, and individually rational rules for fractional matching," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 15-29.
    13. Schummer, James, 2000. "Eliciting Preferences to Assign Positions and Compensation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 293-318, February.
    14. Shasikanta Nandeibam, 2013. "The structure of decision schemes with cardinal preferences," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 17(3), pages 205-238, September.

    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:joecth:v:13:y:1999:i:3:p:709-722. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.