IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/105320.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Strategy-proof Allocation of Indivisible Goods when Preferences are Single-peaked

Author

Listed:
  • Mandal, Pinaki
  • Roy, Souvik

Abstract

We consider assignment problems where heterogeneous indivisible goods are to be assigned to individuals so that each individual receives at most one good. Individuals have single-peaked preferences over the goods. In this setting, first we show that there is no strategy-proof, non-bossy, Pareto efficient, and strongly pairwise reallocation-proof assignment rule on a minimally rich single-peaked domain when there are at least three individuals and at least three objects in the market. Next, we characterize all strategy-proof, Pareto efficient, top-envy-proof, non-bossy, and pairwise reallocation-proof assignment rules on a minimally rich single-peaked domain as hierarchical exchange rules. We additionally show that strategy-proofness and non-bossiness together are equivalent to group strategy-proofness on a minimally rich single-peaked domain, and every hierarchical exchange rule satisfies group-wise reallocation-proofness on a minimally rich single-peaked domain.

Suggested Citation

  • Mandal, Pinaki & Roy, Souvik, 2021. "Strategy-proof Allocation of Indivisible Goods when Preferences are Single-peaked," MPRA Paper 105320, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:105320
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/105320/1/MPRA_paper_105320.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Szilvia Papai, 2000. "Strategyproof Assignment by Hierarchical Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(6), pages 1403-1434, November.
    2. Lars Ehlers & Bettina Klaus, 2007. "Consistent House Allocation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 30(3), pages 561-574, March.
    3. Mandal, Pinaki & Roy, Souvik, 2020. "Obviously Strategy-proof Implementation of Assignment Rules: A New Characterization," MPRA Paper 104044, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Karakaya, Mehmet & Klaus, Bettina & Schlegel, Jan Christoph, 2019. "Top trading cycles, consistency, and acyclic priorities for house allocation with existing tenants," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    5. Pycia, Marek & Unver, Utku, 2017. "Incentive compatible allocation and exchange of discrete resources," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    6. Mark A. Satterthwaite & Hugo Sonnenschein, 1981. "Strategy-Proof Allocation Mechanisms at Differentiable Points," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 48(4), pages 587-597.
    7. Ehlers, Lars & Klaus, Bettina, 2006. "Efficient priority rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 372-384, May.
    8. Lars-Gunnar Svensson, 1999. "Strategy-proof allocation of indivisible goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(4), pages 557-567.
    9. Rodrigo Velez, 2014. "Consistent strategy-proof assignment by hierarchical exchange," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(1), pages 125-156, May.
    10. Shapley, Lloyd & Scarf, Herbert, 1974. "On cores and indivisibility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 23-37, March.
    11. Bade, Sophie, 2019. "Matching with single-peaked preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 81-99.
    12. Ergin, Haluk I., 2000. "Consistency in house allocation problems," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 77-97, 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. Karakaya, Mehmet & Klaus, Bettina & Schlegel, Jan Christoph, 2019. "Top trading cycles, consistency, and acyclic priorities for house allocation with existing tenants," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    2. Kazuhiko Hashimoto, 2018. "Strategy-proofness and identical preferences lower bound in allocation problem of indivisible objects," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(4), pages 1045-1078, June.
    3. Marek Pycia & M. Utku Ünver, 2022. "Outside options in neutral allocation of discrete resources," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 581-604, December.
    4. Raghavan, Madhav, 2020. "Swap-flexibility in the assignment of houses," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 1-10.
    5. Sophie Bade, 2016. "Pareto-optimal matching allocation mechanisms for boundedly rational agents," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(3), pages 501-510, October.
    6. Morrill, Thayer & Roth, Alvin E., 2024. "Top trading cycles," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    7. Rodrigo Velez, 2014. "Consistent strategy-proof assignment by hierarchical exchange," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(1), pages 125-156, May.
    8. Haeringer, Guillaume & Klijn, Flip, 2009. "Constrained school choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 1921-1947, September.
    9. Shende, Priyanka & Purohit, Manish, 2023. "Strategy-proof and envy-free mechanisms for house allocation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Tayfun Sönmez & M. Utku Ünver, 2006. "Kidney Exchange with Good Samaritan Donors: A Characterization," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 640, Boston College Department of Economics.
    12. Sophie Bade, 2011. "Pareto-Optimal Assignments by Hierarchical Exchange," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2011_11, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    13. Ehlers, Lars, 2014. "Top trading with fixed tie-breaking in markets with indivisible goods," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 64-87.
    14. Sophie Bade, 2014. "Pareto-optimal assignments by hierarchical exchange," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(2), pages 279-287, February.
    15. Raghavan, Madhav, 2020. "Influence in private-goods allocation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 14-28.
    16. Rong, Kang & Tang, Qianfeng & Zhang, Yongchao, 2020. "On stable and efficient mechanisms for priority-based allocation problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    17. Ekici, Özgün, 2013. "Reclaim-proof allocation of indivisible objects," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 1-10.
    18. Pycia, Marek & Unver, Utku, 2017. "Incentive compatible allocation and exchange of discrete resources," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    19. 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.
    20. Sönmez, Tayfun & Ünver, M. Utku, 2010. "House allocation with existing tenants: A characterization," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 425-445, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Assignment problem; Single-peaked preferences; Strategy-proofness; Pareto efficiency; Non-bossiness; Top-envy-proofness; Strong reallocation-proofness; Pairwise/group-wise reallocation-proofness;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    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:pra:mprapa:105320. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.