IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jogath/v53y2024i3d10.1007_s00182-024-00897-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Allocation rules are very generally vulnerable to the strategic withholding of endowments

Author

Listed:
  • William Thomson

    (University of Rochester - River Campus)

Abstract

An allocation rule is “withholding-proof" if no agent ever benefits from withholding some of the resources they own, their final bundle consisting of what the rule assigns to them together with whatever they withheld. It was known that on the “classical" domain of continuous, monotone, and convex preferences, no rule is efficient and withholding-proof (Postlewaite, Rev Econ Stud 46:255–262, 1979). We show that this disappointing news persists under the simultaneous imposition of the following three restrictions: (i) the domain only consists of classical and homothetic preferences; (iii) when an agent withholds some of their endowment, they only recover a percentage of what they withhold, no matter how close to 0 that percentage is; (iii) rules are required to satisfy any of the central punctual requirements of fairness, the individual-endowments lower bounds, no-envy in trades (adapted from Tinbergen, Redelijke Inkomensverdeling, Second Edition. N.D. DeGulden Pers, Haarlem, 1953, and Foley, Yale Economic Essays 7:45–98, 1967) and egalitarian-equivalence in trades (adapted from Pazner and Schmeidler, Quart J Econ 92:671–687, 1978 and Schmeidler and Vind, Econometrica 40:637–642, 1972).

Suggested Citation

  • William Thomson, 2024. "Allocation rules are very generally vulnerable to the strategic withholding of endowments," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 53(3), pages 791-809, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jogath:v:53:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s00182-024-00897-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s00182-024-00897-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00182-024-00897-0
    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/s00182-024-00897-0?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.

    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:jogath:v:53:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s00182-024-00897-0. 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.