IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mtl/montec/07-2016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Strategy-proof Choice of Acts : A Preliminary Study

Author

Listed:
  • Yves SPRUMONT

Abstract

We model social choices as acts mapping states of the world to (social) outcomes. A (social choice) rule assigns an act to every profile of subjective expected utility preferences over acts. A rule is strategy-proof if no agent ever has an incentive to misrepresent her beliefs about the world or her valuation of the outcomes; it is ex-post efficient if the act selected at any given preference profile picks a Pareto-efficient outcome in every state of the world. We show that every two-agent ex-post efficient and strategy-proof rule is a top selection : the chosen act picks the most preferred outcome of some (possibly different) agent in every state of the world. The states in which an agentís top outcome is selected cannot vary with the reported valuations of the outcomes but may change with the reported beliefs. We give a complete characterization of the ex-post efficient and strategy-proof rules in the two-agent, two-state case, and we identify a rich class of such rules in the two-agent case.

Suggested Citation

  • Yves SPRUMONT, 2016. "Strategy-proof Choice of Acts : A Preliminary Study," Cahiers de recherche 07-2016, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    • Handle: RePEc:mtl:montec:07-2016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cireqmontreal.com/wp-content/uploads/cahiers/07-2016-cah.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edi Karni, 2009. "A Mechanism for Eliciting Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 603-606, March.
    2. Michel Le Breton & Arunava Sen, 1999. "Separable Preferences, Strategyproofness, and Decomposability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 605-628, May.
    3. Itzhak Gilboa & Dov Samet & David Schmeidler, 2004. "Utilitarian Aggregation of Beliefs and Tastes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(4), pages 932-938, August.
    4. Itzhak Gilboa & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2014. "No‐Betting‐Pareto Dominance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(4), pages 1405-1442, July.
    5. Barbera, Salvador & Sonnenschein, Hugo & Zhou, Lin, 1991. "Voting by Committees," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 595-609, May.
    6. Barbera, Salvador & Sonnenschein, Hugo & Zhou, Lin, 1991. "Voting by Committees," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 595-609, May.
    7. Shasikanta Nandeibam, 2013. "The structure of decision schemes with cardinal preferences," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 17(3), pages 205-238, September.
    8. Barbera Salvador & Gul Faruk & Stacchetti Ennio, 1993. "Generalized Median Voter Schemes and Committees," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 262-289, December.
    9. Kim C. Border & J. S. Jordan, 1983. "Straightforward Elections, Unanimity and Phantom Voters," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 50(1), pages 153-170.
    10. Gibbard, Allan, 1977. "Manipulation of Schemes That Mix Voting with Chance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(3), pages 665-681, April.
    11. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    12. Papai, Szilvia, 2007. "Exchange in a general market with indivisible goods," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 208-235, January.
    13. Gneiting, Tilmann & Raftery, Adrian E., 2007. "Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 359-378, March.
    14. Hylland, Aanund & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 1979. "The Impossibility of Bayesian Group Decision Making with Separate Aggregation of Beliefs and Values," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(6), pages 1321-1336, November.
    15. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    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. BAHEL, Eric & SPRUMONT, Yves, 2017. "Strategyproof choice of acts: beyond dictatorship," Cahiers de recherche 2017-01, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
    2. BAHEL, Eric & SPRUMONT, Yves, 2017. "Strategyproof choice of acts: beyond dictatorship," Cahiers de recherche 2017-01, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
    3. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2018. "On random social choice functions with the tops-only property," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 413-435.
    4. Barbera, S. & Masso, J. & Serizawa, S., 1998. "Strategy-Proof Voting on Compact Ranges," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 272-291, November.
    5. Chatterji, Shurojit & Roy, Souvik & Sen, Arunava, 2012. "The structure of strategy-proof random social choice functions over product domains and lexicographically separable preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 353-366.
    6. Lars-Gunnar Svensson & Pär Torstensson, 2008. "Strategy-proof allocation of multiple public goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(2), pages 181-196, February.
    7. Chatterji, Shurojit & Sen, Arunava & Zeng, Huaxia, 2014. "Random dictatorship domains," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 212-236.
    8. Shurojit Chatterji & Huaxia Zeng, 2022. "A Taxonomy of Non-dictatorial Unidimensional Domains," Papers 2201.00496, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    9. Barberà, Salvador & Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2010. "Individual versus group strategy-proofness: When do they coincide?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1648-1674, September.
    10. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2023. "A taxonomy of non-dictatorial unidimensional domains," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 228-269.
    11. Alcalde-Unzu, Jorge & Vorsatz, Marc, 2018. "Strategy-proof location of public facilities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 21-48.
    12. Chatterji, Shurojit & Sanver, Remzi & Sen, Arunava, 2013. "On domains that admit well-behaved strategy-proof social choice functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 1050-1073.
    13. Mishra, Debasis & Roy, Souvik, 2012. "Strategy-proof partitioning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 285-300.
    14. Chatterji, Shurojit & Sen, Arunava & Zeng, Huaxia, 2016. "A characterization of single-peaked preferences via random social choice functions," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(2), May.
    15. Tobias Rachidi, 2020. "Optimal Voting Mechanisms on Generalized Single-Peaked Domains," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2020_214, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    16. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2019. "Random mechanism design on multidimensional domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 25-105.
    17. , & ,, 2012. "Strategy-proof voting for multiple public goods," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 7(3), September.
    18. Roy, Souvik & Sadhukhan, Soumyarup, 2023. "Committee formation under constraints through randomized voting rules on separable domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    19. Reffgen, Alexander, 2015. "Strategy-proof social choice on multiple and multi-dimensional single-peaked domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 349-383.
    20. Kentaro Hatsumi & Dolors Berga & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2014. "A maximal domain for strategy-proof and no-vetoer rules in the multi-object choice model," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(1), pages 153-168, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    social choice under uncertainty; strategy-proofness; subjective expected utility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    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:mtl:montec:07-2016. 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: Sharon BREWER (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdmtlca.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.