IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2412.11984.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quantifying Inefficiency

Author

Listed:
  • Yannai A. Gonczarowski
  • Ella Segev

Abstract

We axiomatically define a cardinal social inefficiency function, which, given a set of alternatives and individuals' vNM preferences over the alternatives, assigns a unique number -- the social inefficiency -- to each alternative. These numbers -- and not only their order -- are uniquely defined by our axioms despite no exogenously given interpersonal comparison, outside option, or disagreement point. We interpret these numbers as per capita losses in endogenously normalized utility. We apply our social inefficiency function to a setting in which interpersonal comparison is notoriously hard to justify -- object allocation without money -- leveraging techniques from computer science to prove an approximate-efficiency result for the Random Serial Dictatorship mechanism.

Suggested Citation

  • Yannai A. Gonczarowski & Ella Segev, 2024. "Quantifying Inefficiency," Papers 2412.11984, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2412.11984
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.11984
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hart, Sergiu & Nisan, Noam, 2017. "Approximate revenue maximization with multiple items," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 313-347.
    2. Kevin W. S. Roberts, 1980. "Interpersonal Comparability and Social Choice Theory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(2), pages 421-439.
    3. Amrita Dhillon & Jean-Francois Mertens, 1999. "Relative Utilitarianism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 471-498, May.
    4. Alvin E. Roth, 2007. "Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 37-58, Summer.
    5. Sen, Amartya, 1970. "Interpersonal Aggregation and Partial Comparability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 38(3), pages 393-409, May.
    6. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    7. H. W. Kuhn, 1955. "The Hungarian method for the assignment problem," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1‐2), pages 83-97, March.
    8. Ghosh, Souvik & Hassin, Refael, 2021. "Inefficiency in stochastic queueing systems with strategic customers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 295(1), pages 1-11.
    9. Daniela Saban & Jay Sethuraman, 2015. "The Complexity of Computing the Random Priority Allocation Matrix," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 1005-1014, October.
    10. Georgia Perakis & Guillaume Roels, 2007. "The Price of Anarchy in Supply Chains: Quantifying the Efficiency of Price-Only Contracts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(8), pages 1249-1268, August.
    11. Barry Nalebuff, 2021. "A Perspective-Invariant Approach to Nash Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 577-593, January.
    12. Roth, Alvin E., 1977. "Independence of irrelevant alternatives, and solutions to Nash's bargaining problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 247-251, December.
    13. Kaneko, Mamoru & Nakamura, Kenjiro, 1979. "The Nash Social Welfare Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 423-435, March.
    14. Marc Fleurbaey & Koichi Tadenuma, 2014. "Universal Social Orderings: An Integrated Theory of Policy Evaluation, Inter-Society Comparisons, and Interpersonal Comparisons," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(3), pages 1071-1101.
    15. Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2017. "A Fairness Justification of Utilitarianism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1261-1276, July.
    16. Eric Maskin, 1978. "A Theorem on Utilitarianism," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 45(1), pages 93-96.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. d'Aspremont, Claude & Gevers, Louis, 2002. "Social welfare functionals and interpersonal comparability," 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 1, chapter 10, pages 459-541, Elsevier.
    2. Segal, Uzi & Sobel, Joel, 2002. "Min, Max, and Sum," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 126-150, September.
    3. Piacquadio, Paolo G., 2020. "The ethics of intergenerational risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    4. Elizabeth Maggie Penn, 2019. "Introduction to a special issue in honor of Kenneth Arrow," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 1-6, April.
    5. Kaminski, Marek M., 2004. "Social choice and information: the informational structure of uniqueness theorems in axiomatic social theories," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 121-138, September.
    6. Marcus Pivato, 2009. "Twofold optimality of the relative utilitarian bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(1), pages 79-92, January.
    7. Jon X. Eguia & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2019. "Social welfare with net utilities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 41-49, April.
    8. M. Kaneko, 1984. "On interpersonal utility comparisons," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 1(3), pages 165-175, October.
    9. Yew‐Kwang Ng, 1981. "Bentham or Nash? On the Acceptable Form of Social Welfare Functions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 57(3), pages 238-250, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Sakamoto, Norihito, 2020. "Equity Principles and Interpersonal Comparison of Well-being: Old and New Joint Characterizations of Generalized Leximin, Rank-dependent Utilitarian, and Leximin Rules," RCNE Discussion Paper Series 7, Research Center for Normative Economics, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    12. Vincent Martinet & Pedro Gajardo & Michel de Lara, 2021. "Bargaining On Monotonic Economic Environments," Working Papers hal-03206724, HAL.
    13. Barry Nalebuff, 2021. "A Perspective-Invariant Approach to Nash Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 577-593, January.
    14. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    15. Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2017. "A Fairness Justification of Utilitarianism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1261-1276, July.
    16. Blackorby, Charles & Bossert, Walter, 2004. "Interpersonal comparisons of well-being," Economic Research Papers 269605, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    17. Gur, Yonatan & Iancu, Dan & Warnes, Xavier, 2020. "Value Loss in Allocation Systems with Provider Guarantees," Research Papers 3813, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    18. Attila Ambrus & Kareen Rozen, 2015. "Rationalising Choice with Multi‐self Models," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(585), pages 1136-1156, June.
    19. Bas Dietzenbacher & Hans Peters, 2022. "Characterizing NTU-bankruptcy rules using bargaining axioms," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 871-888, November.
    20. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2017. "Axiomatizations of the equal-loss and weighted equal-loss bargaining solutions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 1-9, June.

    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:arx:papers:2412.11984. 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.