IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bge/wpaper/1342.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Balanced Exchange in a Multi-Unit Shapley-Scarf Market

Author

Listed:
  • Szilvia Pápai
  • Péter Biró
  • Flip Klijn

Abstract

We study markets in which each agent is endowed with multiple units of an indivisible and agent-specific good. Monetary compensations are not possible. An outcome of a market is given by a circulation which consists of a balanced exchange of goods. Agents only have (responsive) preferences over the bundles they receive. We prove that for general capacity configurations there is no circulation rule that satisfies individual rationality, Pareto-efficiency, and strategy-proofness. We characterize the (so-called irreducible) capacity configurations for which the three properties are compatible, and show that in this case the Circulation Top Trading Cycle (cTTC) rule is the unique rule that satisfies all three properties. We also explore the incentive and efficiency properties of the cTTC rule for general capacity configurations and provide a characterization of the rule for lexicographic preferences. Next, we introduce and study the family of so-called Segmented Trading Cycle (STC) rules. These rules are obtained by first distributing agents' endowments over a number of different smaller markets (the market segments), then applying the standard Top Trading Cycle algorithm within each market segment separately, and finally lumping together the induced circulations. We show that STC rules are individually rational, strategy-proof, and nonbossy. Even though STC rules do not satisfy group-strategy-proofness in general, they do satisfy weaker notions of group-strategy-proofness. For irreducible capacity configurations the family of STC rules collapses to the cTTC rule which then is also group-strategy-proof. Finally, we characterize one particularly interesting STC rule by means of top unanimity and self-enforcing group-strategy-proofness.

Suggested Citation

  • Szilvia Pápai & Péter Biró & Flip Klijn, 2022. "Balanced Exchange in a Multi-Unit Shapley-Scarf Market," Working Papers 1342, Barcelona School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:bge:wpaper:1342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://bw.bse.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/1342-file.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lars Ehlers & Bettina Klaus, 2003. "Coalitional strategy-proof and resource-monotonic solutions for multiple assignment problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(2), pages 265-280, October.
    2. Roth, Alvin E. & Postlewaite, Andrew, 1977. "Weak versus strong domination in a market with indivisible goods," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 131-137, August.
    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. Di Feng & Bettina Klaus, 2022. "Preference revelation games and strict cores of multiple‐type housing market problems," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 18(1), pages 61-76, March.
    2. Sonmez, Tayfun & Utku Unver, M., 2005. "House allocation with existing tenants: an equivalence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 153-185, July.
    3. Roth, Alvin E. & Sonmez, Tayfun & Utku Unver, M., 2005. "Pairwise kidney exchange," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 151-188, December.
    4. Monte, Daniel & Tumennasan, Norovsambuu, 2015. "Centralized allocation in multiple markets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 74-85.
    5. Yuji Fujinaka & Takuma Wakayama, 2011. "Secure implementation in Shapley–Scarf housing markets," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(1), pages 147-169, September.
    6. Papai, Szilvia, 2007. "Exchange in a general market with indivisible goods," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 208-235, January.
    7. Pinaki Mandal, 2022. "Simple dominance of fixed priority top trading cycles," Papers 2204.02154, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2023.
    8. Ehlers, Lars, 2002. "Coalitional Strategy-Proof House Allocation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 298-317, August.
    9. Alvin E. Roth & Tayfun Sönmez & M. Utku Ünver, 2004. "Kidney Exchange," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(2), pages 457-488.
    10. Bettina Klaus & Claudia Meo, 2023. "The core for housing markets with limited externalities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(3), pages 779-811, October.
    11. Ata Atay & Ana Mauleon & Vincent Vannetelbosch, 2022. "Limited Farsightedness in Priority-Based Matching," Papers 2212.07427, arXiv.org.
    12. Alcalde-Unzu, Jorge & Molis, Elena, 2011. "Exchange of indivisible goods and indifferences: The Top Trading Absorbing Sets mechanisms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 1-16, September.
    13. Zhiwei Cui & Yan-An Hwang, 2017. "House exchange and residential segregation in networks," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(1), pages 125-147, March.
    14. Takamiya, Koji, 2001. "Coalition strategy-proofness and monotonicity in Shapley-Scarf housing markets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 201-213, March.
    15. Ivan Balbuzanov & Maciej H. Kotowski, 2019. "Endowments, Exclusion, and Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(5), pages 1663-1692, September.
    16. Afacan, Mustafa Oğuz & Bó, Inácio, 2022. "Strategy-proof popular mechanisms," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    17. Markus Möller, 2024. "Transparent Matching Mechanisms," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 306, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    18. Juarez, Ruben, 2013. "Group strategyproof cost sharing: The role of indifferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 218-239.
    19. Roth, Alvin E., 1985. "Common and conflicting interests in two-sided matching markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 75-96, February.
    20. Kawasaki, Ryo, 2010. "Farsighted stability of the competitive allocations in an exchange economy with indivisible goods," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 46-52, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    strategy-proofness; top trading cycles; indivisible goods; circulation; Pareto-efficiency;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory

    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:bge:wpaper:1342. 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: Bruno Guallar (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bargses.html .

    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.