IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v101y2017icp6-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A simple market-like allocation mechanism for public goods

Author

Listed:
  • Van Essen, Matthew
  • Walker, Mark

Abstract

We argue that since allocation mechanisms will not always be in equilibrium, their out-of-equilibrium properties must be taken into account along with their properties in equilibrium. For economies with public goods, we define a simple market-like mechanism in which the strong Nash equilibria yield the Lindahl allocations and prices. The mechanism satisfies critical out-of-equilibrium desiderata that previously-introduced mechanisms fail to satisfy, and always (weakly) yields Pareto improvements, whether in equilibrium or not. The mechanism requires participants to communicate prices and quantities, and turns these into outcomes according to a natural and intuitive outcome function. Our approach first exploits the equivalence, when there are only two participants, between the private-good and public-good allocation problems to obtain a two-person public-good mechanism, and then we generalize the public-good mechanism to an arbitrary number of participants. The results and the intuition behind them are illustrated in the familiar Edgeworth Box and Kölm Triangle diagrams.

Suggested Citation

  • Van Essen, Matthew & Walker, Mark, 2017. "A simple market-like allocation mechanism for public goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 6-19.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:101:y:2017:i:c:p:6-19
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2016.02.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825616000270
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2016.02.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walker, Mark, 1981. "A Simple Incentive Compatible Scheme for Attaining Lindahl Allocations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 65-71, January.
    2. Van Essen, Matthew & Lazzati, Natalia & Walker, Mark, 2012. "Out-of-equilibrium performance of three Lindahl mechanisms: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 366-381.
    3. Yan Chen & Robert Gazzale, 2004. "When Does Learning in Games Generate Convergence to Nash Equilibria? The Role of Supermodularity in an Experimental Setting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1505-1535, December.
    4. Vernon L. Smith, 1962. "An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70, pages 322-322.
    5. Thomson, William, 1999. "Economies with Public Goods: An Elementary Geometric Exposition," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 1(1), pages 139-176.
    6. Chen, Yan & Plott, Charles R., 1996. "The Groves-Ledyard mechanism: An experimental study of institutional design," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 335-364, March.
    7. Schmeidler, David, 1980. "Walrasian Analysis via Strategic Outcome Functions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(7), pages 1585-1593, November.
    8. Dubey, Pradeep, 1982. "Price-Quantity Strategic Market Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 111-126, January.
    9. Mark Bagnoli & Barton L. Lipman, 1989. "Provision of Public Goods: Fully Implementing the Core through Private Contributions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 56(4), pages 583-601.
    10. Bezalel Peleg, 1996. "Double implementation of the Lindahl equilibrium by a continuous mechanism," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 2(1), pages 311-324, December.
    11. , J. & ,, 2012. "Designing stable mechanisms for economic environments," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 7(3), September.
    12. Yan Chen & Fang-Fang Tang, 1998. "Learning and Incentive-Compatible Mechanisms for Public Goods Provision: An Experimental Study," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(3), pages 633-662, June.
    13. Shapley, Lloyd S & Shubik, Martin, 1977. "Trade Using One Commodity as a Means of Payment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(5), pages 937-968, October.
    14. L. Hurwicz, 1979. "Outcome Functions Yielding Walrasian and Lindahl Allocations at Nash Equilibrium Points," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 46(2), pages 217-225.
    15. Matt Van Essen, 2015. "Bartering Games in the Kolm Triangle," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(3), pages 297-310, June.
    16. Matt Van Essen, 2012. "Information complexity, punishment, and stability in two Nash efficient Lindahl mechanisms," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 16(1), pages 15-40, March.
    17. Wilson, Robert B, 1978. "Competitive Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(3), pages 577-585, May.
    18. de Trenqualye, Pierre, 1989. "Stable implementation of Lindahl allocations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 291-294.
    19. Bernheim, B. Douglas & Whinston, Michael D., 1987. "Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibria II. Applications," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 13-29, June.
    20. Healy, Paul J., 2006. "Learning dynamics for mechanism design: An experimental comparison of public goods mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 114-149, July.
    21. Yan Chen, 2002. "A family of supermodular Nash mechanisms implementing Lindahl allocations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 19(4), pages 773-790.
    22. Varian, Hal R, 1994. "A Solution to the Problem of Externalities When Agents Are Well-Informed," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1278-1293, December.
    23. Matthew J. Essen, 2013. "A Simple Supermodular Mechanism that Implements Lindahl Allocations," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 15(3), pages 363-377, June.
    24. Kim, Taesung, 1993. "A stable Nash mechanism implementing Lindahl allocations for quasi-linear environments," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 359-371.
    25. Bernheim, B. Douglas & Peleg, Bezalel & Whinston, Michael D., 1987. "Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibria I. Concepts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-12, June.
    26. Luis Corchon & Simon Wilkie, 1996. "Double implementation of the ratio correspondence by a market mechanism," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 2(1), pages 325-337, December.
    27. Giraud, Gael, 2003. "Strategic market games: an introduction," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(5-6), pages 355-375, July.
    28. Schlesinger, Harris, 1989. "On the Analytics of Pure Public Good Provision," Public Finance = Finances publiques, , vol. 44(1), pages 102-109.
    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. Alberti, Federica & Mantilla, César, 2020. "Provision of noxious facilities using a market-like mechanism: A simple implementation in the lab," Working papers 35, Red Investigadores de Economía.
    2. Ferraz, Eduardo & Mantilla, César, 2023. "A mechanism for the efficient provision of Potential Pareto public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).

    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. , J. & ,, 2012. "Designing stable mechanisms for economic environments," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 7(3), September.
    2. Matt Van Essen, 2015. "Bartering Games in the Kolm Triangle," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(3), pages 297-310, June.
    3. Matt Van Essen, 2012. "Information complexity, punishment, and stability in two Nash efficient Lindahl mechanisms," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 16(1), pages 15-40, March.
    4. Van Essen, Matthew J., 2008. "A Simple Supermodular Mechanism that Implements Lindahl Allocations," MPRA Paper 12781, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Matt Essen, 2014. "A Clarke tax tâtonnement that converges to the Lindahl allocation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(2), pages 309-327, August.
    6. Van Essen, Matthew & Lazzati, Natalia & Walker, Mark, 2012. "Out-of-equilibrium performance of three Lindahl mechanisms: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 366-381.
    7. Healy, Paul J. & Jain, Ritesh, 2017. "Generalized Groves–Ledyard mechanisms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 204-217.
    8. Hassan Benchekroun & Charles Figuières & Mabel Tidball, 2016. "Implementation of the Lindahl Correspondance via Simple Indirect Mechanisms," Working Papers halshs-01378460, HAL.
    9. Masuda, Takehito & Okano, Yoshitaka & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi, 2014. "The minimum approval mechanism implements the efficient public good allocation theoretically and experimentally," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 73-85.
    10. repec:dpr:wpaper:0874r is not listed on IDEAS
    11. repec:dpr:wpaper:0874 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Matthew O. Jackson, 2001. "A crash course in implementation theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(4), pages 655-708.
    13. Takuma Wakayama & Takehiko Yamato, 2023. "Comparison of the voluntary contribution and Pareto-efficient mechanisms under voluntary participation," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(2), pages 517-553, June.
    14. Matt Van Essen, 2012. "A note on the stability of Chen’s Lindahl mechanism," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(2), pages 365-370, February.
    15. Bracht, Juergen & Figuieres, Charles & Ratto, Marisa, 2008. "Relative performance of two simple incentive mechanisms in a public goods experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 54-90, February.
    16. Huber, Juergen & Shubik, Martin & Sunder, Shyam, 2010. "Three minimal market institutions with human and algorithmic agents: Theory and experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 403-424, November.
    17. Gael Giraud & Hubert Stahn, 2013. "Nash-implementation of competitive equilibria via a bounded mechanism," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 17(1), pages 43-62, March.
    18. Giraud, Gael & Rochon, Celine, 2002. "Consistent collusion-proofness and correlation in exchange economies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 441-463, December.
    19. Mathevet, Laurent & Taneva, Ina, 2013. "Finite supermodular design with interdependent valuations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 327-349.
    20. Carmen Bevi?Author-Email: Carmen.Bevia@uab.es & Luis C. Corch?n & Simon Wilkie, "undated". "Implementation of the Walrasian Correspondence by Market Games," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 493.01, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    21. Tian, Guoqiang, 2000. "Implementation of balanced linear cost share equilibrium solution in Nash and strong Nash equilibria," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 239-261, May.
    22. Alberti, Federica & Mantilla, César, 2020. "Provision of noxious facilities using a market-like mechanism: A simple implementation in the lab," Working papers 35, Red Investigadores de Economía.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Allocation mechanisms; Public goods;

    JEL classification:

    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods
    • D5 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    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:eee:gamebe:v:101:y:2017:i:c:p:6-19. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    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.