IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1807.05293.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Markets Beyond Nash Welfare for Leontief Utilities

Author

Listed:
  • Ashish Goel
  • Reyna Hulett
  • Benjamin Plaut

Abstract

We study the allocation of divisible goods to competing agents via a market mechanism, focusing on agents with Leontief utilities. The majority of the economics and mechanism design literature has focused on \emph{linear} prices, meaning that the cost of a good is proportional to the quantity purchased. Equilibria for linear prices are known to be exactly the maximum Nash welfare allocations. \emph{Price curves} allow the cost of a good to be any (increasing) function of the quantity purchased. We show that price curve equilibria are not limited to maximum Nash welfare allocations with two main results. First, we show that an allocation can be supported by strictly increasing price curves if and only if it is \emph{group-domination-free}. A similarly characterization holds for weakly increasing price curves. We use this to show that given any allocation, we can compute strictly (or weakly) increasing price curves that support it (or show that none exist) in polynomial time. These results involve a connection to the \emph{agent-order matrix} of an allocation, which may have other applications. Second, we use duality to show that in the bandwidth allocation setting, any allocation maximizing a CES welfare function can be supported by price curves.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashish Goel & Reyna Hulett & Benjamin Plaut, 2018. "Markets Beyond Nash Welfare for Leontief Utilities," Papers 1807.05293, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2019.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1807.05293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.05293
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William C. Brainard & Herbert E. Scarf, 2005. "How to Compute Equilibrium Prices in 1891," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(1), pages 57-83, January.
    2. E. Eisenberg, 1961. "Aggregation of Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 337-350, July.
    3. James Schummer, 1996. "Strategy-proofness versus efficiency on restricted domains of exchange economies," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 14(1), pages 47-56.
    4. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    5. Kaneko, Mamoru & Nakamura, Kenjiro, 1979. "The Nash Social Welfare Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 423-435, March.
    6. Foley, Duncan K, 1970. "Lindahl's Solution and the Core of an Economy with Public Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 38(1), pages 66-72, January.
    7. Jain, Kamal & Vazirani, Vijay V., 2010. "Eisenberg-Gale markets: Algorithms and game-theoretic properties," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 84-106, September.
    8. Varian, Hal R., 1974. "Equity, envy, and efficiency," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 63-91, September.
    9. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September.
    10. Blackorby, Charles & Donaldson, David, 1978. "Measures of relative equality and their meaning in terms of social welfare," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 59-80, June.
    11. Sen, Amartya K, 1977. "Social Choice Theory: A Re-examination," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(1), pages 53-89, January.
    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. Nikhil Garg & Ashish Goel & Benjamin Plaut, 2021. "Markets for public decision-making," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 755-801, May.
    2. Felix Brandt & Matthias Greger & Erel Segal-Halevi & Warut Suksompong, 2023. "Coordinating Charitable Donations," Papers 2305.10286, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2024.

    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. Nikhil Garg & Ashish Goel & Benjamin Plaut, 2021. "Markets for public decision-making," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 755-801, May.
    2. Ortega, Josué, 2020. "Multi-unit assignment under dichotomous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 15-24.
    3. Kotaro Suzumura, 2002. "Introduction to social choice and welfare," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 442, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    4. Devansh Jalota & Yinyu Ye, 2022. "Stochastic Online Fisher Markets: Static Pricing Limits and Adaptive Enhancements," Papers 2205.00825, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2024.
    5. Sandomirskiy, Fedor & Ushchev, Philip, 2024. "The geometry of consumer preference aggregation," CEPR Discussion Papers 19100, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Susumu Cato, 2018. "Choice functions and weak Nash axioms," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 22(3), pages 159-176, December.
    7. Mariotti, Marco & Wen, Quan, 2021. "A noncooperative foundation of the competitive divisions for bads," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    8. Kamesh Munagala & Yiheng Shen & Kangning Wang & Zhiyi Wang, 2021. "Approximate Core for Committee Selection via Multilinear Extension and Market Clearing," Papers 2110.12499, arXiv.org.
    9. Piotr Żebrowski & Ulf Dieckmann & Åke Brännström & Oskar Franklin & Elena Rovenskaya, 2022. "Sharing the Burdens of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation: Incorporating Fairness Perspectives into Policy Optimization Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-24, March.
    10. Moshe Babaioff & Noam Nisan & Inbal Talgam-Cohen, 2021. "Competitive Equilibrium with Indivisible Goods and Generic Budgets," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 382-403, February.
    11. Siddharth Barman & Sanath Kumar Krishnamurthy & Rohit Vaish, 2018. "Greedy Algorithms for Maximizing Nash Social Welfare," Papers 1801.09046, arXiv.org.
    12. Cheung, Yun Kuen & Cole, Richard & Devanur, Nikhil R., 2020. "Tatonnement beyond gross substitutes? Gradient descent to the rescue," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 295-326.
    13. Simina Br^anzei & Fedor Sandomirskiy, 2019. "Algorithms for Competitive Division of Chores," Papers 1907.01766, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    14. Cowell, Frank & Flachaire, Emmanuel & Bandyopadhyay, Sanghamitra, 2009. "Goodness-of-fit: an economic approach," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 25433, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Christos Koutsampelas & Panos Tsakloglou, 2013. "The distribution of full income in Greece," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 40(4), pages 311-330, March.
    16. Johannes König & Carsten Schröder, 2018. "Inequality-minimization with a given public budget," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 16(4), pages 607-629, December.
    17. Russell Davidson & Jean-Yves Duclos, 2000. "Statistical Inference for Stochastic Dominance and for the Measurement of Poverty and Inequality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(6), pages 1435-1464, November.
    18. P. Jenkins, Stephen & A. Cowell, Frank, 2000. "Estimating welfare indices: household weights and sample design," ISER Working Paper Series 2000-23, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    19. Luofeng Liao & Christian Kroer, 2024. "Statistical Inference and A/B Testing in Fisher Markets and Paced Auctions," Papers 2406.15522, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    20. Frank Cowell & Udo Ebert, 2004. "Complaints and inequality," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 23(1), pages 71-89, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:1807.05293. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.