IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gla/glaewp/2016_08.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Unreasonable Fairness of Maximum Nash Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Ioannis Caragiannis
  • David Kurokawa
  • Herve Moulin
  • Ariel D. Procaccia
  • Nisarg Shah
  • Junxing Wang

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Ioannis Caragiannis & David Kurokawa & Herve Moulin & Ariel D. Procaccia & Nisarg Shah & Junxing Wang, 2016. "The Unreasonable Fairness of Maximum Nash Welfare," Working Papers 2016_08, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    • Handle: RePEc:gla:glaewp:2016_08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_452490_en.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour & Christian Klamler, 2017. "Maximin Envy-Free Division of Indivisible Items," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 115-131, January.
    2. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    3. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Moulin, Herve, 2001. "A New Solution to the Random Assignment Problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 295-328, October.
    4. Anna Bogomolnaia & Herve Moulin, 2004. "Random Matching Under Dichotomous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(1), pages 257-279, January.
    5. Eric Budish, 2011. "The Combinatorial Assignment Problem: Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(6), pages 1061-1103.
    6. Varian, Hal R., 1974. "Equity, envy, and efficiency," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 63-91, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Eric Budish & Yeon-Koo Che & Fuhito Kojima & Paul Milgrom, 2013. "Designing Random Allocation Mechanisms: Theory and Applications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(2), pages 585-623, April.
    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. Hadi Hosseini & Zhiyi Huang & Ayumi Igarashi & Nisarg Shah, 2022. "Class Fairness in Online Matching," Papers 2203.03751, arXiv.org.
    2. Goko, Hiromichi & Igarashi, Ayumi & Kawase, Yasushi & Makino, Kazuhisa & Sumita, Hanna & Tamura, Akihisa & Yokoi, Yu & Yokoo, Makoto, 2024. "A fair and truthful mechanism with limited subsidy," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 49-70.
    3. Luofeng Liao & Yuan Gao & Christian Kroer, 2022. "Statistical Inference for Fisher Market Equilibrium," Papers 2209.15422, arXiv.org.
    4. Anna Bogomolnaia & Herve Moulin & Fedor Sandomirskiy & Elena Yanovskaya, 2016. "Dividing Goods or Bads Under Additive Utilities," HSE Working papers WP BRP 147/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    5. Hadi Hosseini & Andrew Searns, 2021. "Guaranteeing Maximin Shares: Some Agents Left Behind," Papers 2105.09383, arXiv.org.
    6. Christian Kroer & Alexander Peysakhovich, 2019. "Scalable Fair Division for 'At Most One' Preferences," Papers 1909.10925, arXiv.org.
    7. Anna Bogomolnaia & Hervé Moulin & Fedor Sandomirskiy & Elena Yanovskaya, 2017. "Competitive Division of a Mixed Manna," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85(6), pages 1847-1871, November.
    8. Florian Brandl & Felix Brandt & Matthias Greger & Dominik Peters & Christian Stricker & Warut Suksompong, 2020. "Funding Public Projects: A Case for the Nash Product Rule," Papers 2005.07997, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    9. Krist'of B'erczi & Erika R. B'erczi-Kov'acs & Endre Boros & Fekadu Tolessa Gedefa & Naoyuki Kamiyama & Telikepalli Kavitha & Yusuke Kobayashi & Kazuhisa Makino, 2020. "Envy-free Relaxations for Goods, Chores, and Mixed Items," Papers 2006.04428, arXiv.org.
    10. Erel Segal-Halevi & Balázs R. Sziklai, 2019. "Monotonicity and competitive equilibrium in cake-cutting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(2), pages 363-401, September.
    11. Simina Br^anzei & Fedor Sandomirskiy, 2019. "Algorithms for Competitive Division of Chores," Papers 1907.01766, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    12. Fedor Sandomirskiy & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2019. "Efficient Fair Division with Minimal Sharing," Papers 1908.01669, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.

    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. Ortega, Josué, 2020. "Multi-unit assignment under dichotomous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 15-24.
    2. Cole, Richard & Tao, Yixin, 2021. "On the existence of Pareto Efficient and envy-free allocations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. He, Yinghua & Li, Sanxi & Yan, Jianye, 2015. "Evaluating assignment without transfers: A market perspective," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 40-44.
    4. Fedor Sandomirskiy & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2019. "Efficient Fair Division with Minimal Sharing," Papers 1908.01669, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    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. Simina Br^anzei & Fedor Sandomirskiy, 2019. "Algorithms for Competitive Division of Chores," Papers 1907.01766, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    7. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    8. Miralles, Antonio & Pycia, Marek, 2021. "Foundations of pseudomarkets: Walrasian equilibria for discrete resources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    9. de Clippel, Geoffroy & Pérez-Castrillo, David & Wettstein, David, 2012. "Egalitarian equivalence under asymmetric information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 413-423.
    10. Eun Jeong Heo & Vikram Manjunath, 2017. "Implementation in stochastic dominance Nash equilibria," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 5-30, January.
    11. Eric Budish & Judd B. Kessler, 2022. "Can Market Participants Report Their Preferences Accurately (Enough)?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1107-1130, February.
    12. Shende, Priyanka & Purohit, Manish, 2023. "Strategy-proof and envy-free mechanisms for house allocation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    13. Andrew McLennan & Shino Takayama & Yuki Tamura, 2024. "An Efficient, Computationally Tractable School Choice Mechanism," Discussion Papers Series 668, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    14. José Alcalde & Antonio Romero-Medina, 2017. "Fair student placement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(2), pages 293-307, August.
    15. Zhan Wang & Jinpeng Ma & Hongwei Zhang, 2023. "Object-based unawareness: Theory and applications," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 8(1), pages 1-55, December.
    16. Onur Kesten & Morimitsu Kurino & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2017. "Efficient lottery design," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 31-57, January.
    17. Nikhil Agarwal & Eric Budish, 2021. "Market Design," NBER Working Papers 29367, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Jean-Paul Chavas & Jay Coggins, 2003. "On fairness and welfare analysis under uncertainty," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 20(2), pages 203-228, March.
    19. Yoshio Sano & Ping Zhan, 2021. "Extended Random Assignment Mechanisms on a Family of Good Sets," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 1-30, December.
    20. Mackenzie, Andrew & Komornik, Vilmos, 2023. "Fairly taking turns," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 743-764.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fair division; Resource allocation; Nash welfare; Maximum product;
    All these keywords.

    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:gla:glaewp:2016_08. 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: Business School Research Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dpglauk.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.