IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v42y2014i2p255-277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New variable-population paradoxes for resource allocation

Author

Listed:
  • William Thomson

Abstract

We identify previously unnoticed ways in which agents can strategically distort allocation rules, by affecting the set of “active” agents. (i) An agent withdraws with his endowment. (ii) He gives control of his endowment to someone else and withdraws. (iii) He invites someone in and let him use some of his endowment. (iv) He pre-delivers to some other agent the net trade that the rule would assign to that second agent if that second agent had participated. In (i) and (ii), he and his co-conspirator may end up controlling resources that allow them to reach higher welfare levels than they otherwise would. In (iii) and (iv), he may end up with a bundle that he prefers to the one he would have been assigned had he not engaged in the manipulation. We show that (i) the Walrasian rule is not “withdrawing-proof”, nor “endowments-merging-proof, nor “endowments-splitting-proof”, but that it is “pre-delivery-proof”, and that (ii) canonical selections from the egalitarian-equivalence-in-trades solutions satisfy none of the properties. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Suggested Citation

  • William Thomson, 2014. "New variable-population paradoxes for resource allocation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(2), pages 255-277, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:42:y:2014:i:2:p:255-277
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-013-0731-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00355-013-0731-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00355-013-0731-5?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Biung-Ghi Ju & Juan Moreno-Ternero, 2011. "Progressive and merging-proof taxation," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(1), pages 43-62, February.
    2. Gale, David, 1974. "Exchange equilibrium and coalitions : An example," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 63-66, March.
    3. Andrew Postlewaite, 1979. "Manipulation via Endowments," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 46(2), pages 255-262.
    4. Hervé Moulin, 2007. "On Scheduling Fees to Prevent Merging, Splitting, and Transferring of Jobs," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 266-283, May.
    5. Schmeidler, David & Vind, Karl, 1972. "Fair Net Trades," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 40(4), pages 637-642, July.
      • SCHMEIDLER, David & VIND, Karl, 1972. "Fair net trades," LIDAM Reprints CORE 131, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    6. Sertel, Murat & Yildiz, Muhamet, 2004. "Core is manipulable via segmentation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 103-117, September.
    7. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2003. "Manipulation via merging and splitting in claims problems," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 8(2), pages 205-215, October.
    8. M. Angeles de Frutos, 1999. "Coalitional manipulations in a bankruptcy problem," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 4(3), pages 255-272.
    9. Elisha A. Pazner & David Schmeidler, 1978. "Egalitarian Equivalent Allocations: A New Concept of Economic Equity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 92(4), pages 671-687.
    10. Chichilnisky, Graciela & Thomson, William, 1987. "The walrasian mechanism from equal division is not monotonic with respect to variations in the number of consumers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 119-124, February.
    11. Moulin, Hervé, 2008. "Proportional scheduling, split-proofness, and merge-proofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 567-587, July.
    12. Ju, Biung-Ghi & Miyagawa, Eiichi & Sakai, Toyotaka, 2007. "Non-manipulable division rules in claim problems and generalizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 1-26, January.
    13. Aumann, R. J. & Peleg, B., 1974. "A note on Gale's example," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 209-211, August.
    14. Sonmez, Tayfun, 1999. "Can Pre-arranged Matches Be Avoided in Two-Sided Matching Markets?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 148-156, May.
    15. Biung-Ghi Ju & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2006. "Progressivity, Inequality Reduction, and Merging-Proofness in Taxation," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 200603, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2006.
    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. Nanyang Bu & Siwei Chen & William Thomson, 2014. "Merging and splitting endowments in object assignment problems," RCER Working Papers 587, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    2. Wang, Xu & Zhu, Lei & Liu, Pengfei, 2021. "Manipulation via endowments: Quantifying the influence of market power on the emission trading scheme," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    3. Fujinaka, Yuji & Wakayama, Takuma, 2018. "Endowments-swapping-proof house allocation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 187-202.
    4. William Thomson, 2024. "Constrained dictatorial rules are subject to variable-population paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(2), pages 299-310, September.

    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. Alfredo Valencia-Toledo & Juan Vidal-Puga, 2020. "Reassignment-proof rules for land rental problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(1), pages 173-193, March.
    2. Valencia-Toledo, Alfredo & Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2015. "Non-manipulable rules for land rental problems," MPRA Paper 67334, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. William Thomson, 2009. "Borrowing-proofness," RCER Working Papers 545, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    4. María Gómez-Rúa & Juan Vidal-Puga, 2017. "A monotonic and merge-proof rule in minimum cost spanning tree situations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(3), pages 813-826, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Biung-Ghi Ju & Juan Moreno-Ternero, 2011. "Progressive and merging-proof taxation," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(1), pages 43-62, February.
    7. Ju, Biung-Ghi, 2013. "Coalitional manipulation on networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(2), pages 627-662.
    8. William Thomson, 2024. "Constrained dictatorial rules are subject to variable-population paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(2), pages 299-310, September.
    9. Teresa Estañ & Natividad Llorca & Ricardo Martínez & Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano, 2020. "Manipulability in the cost allocation of transport systems," ThE Papers 20/08, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    10. Emin Karagözoğlu, 2014. "A noncooperative approach to bankruptcy problems with an endogenous estate," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 217(1), pages 299-318, June.
    11. Peter Knudsen & Lars Østerdal, 2012. "Merging and splitting in cooperative games: some (im)possibility results," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(4), pages 763-774, November.
    12. Biung†Ghi Ju & Juan D. Moreno†Ternero, 2017. "Fair Allocation Of Disputed Properties," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1279-1301, November.
    13. Chambers, Christopher P. & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2021. "Bilateral redistribution," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    14. Somdeb Lahiri, 2005. "Manipulation via Endowments in a Market with Profit Maximizing Agents," Game Theory and Information 0511008, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Di Feng, 2023. "Endowments-swapping-proofness and Efficiency in Multiple-Type Housing Markets," Discussion Paper Series DP2023-14, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    16. Altuntaş, Açelya & Phan, William & Tamura, Yuki, 2023. "Some characterizations of Generalized Top Trading Cycles," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 156-181.
    17. Biung-Ghi Ju & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2006. "Progressivity, Inequality Reduction, and Merging-Proofness in Taxation," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 200603, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2006.
    18. Moulin, Hervé, 2008. "Proportional scheduling, split-proofness, and merge-proofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 567-587, July.
    19. Pérez-Castrillo, David & Sun, Chaoran, 2022. "The proportional ordinal Shapley solution for pure exchange economies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 96-109.
    20. Fujinaka, Yuji & Wakayama, Takuma, 2018. "Endowments-swapping-proof house allocation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 187-202.

    More about this item

    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:spr:sochwe:v:42:y:2014:i:2:p:255-277. 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.