Strategic Manipulations and Collusions in Knaster Procedure
AbstractThe Knaster’s procedure is one of the simplest and most powerful mechanisms for allocating indivisible objects among agents requiring them, but its sealed bid feature may induce some agents in altering their valuations. In this paper we study the consequences of false declarations on the agents’ payoffs. A misrepresentation of a single agent could produce a gain or a loss. So, we analyze a possible behavior of a subset of infinitely risk-averse agents and propose how to obtain a safe gain via a joint misreporting of their valuations, regardless of the declarations of the other agents.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies in its journal AUCO Czech Economic Review.
Volume (Year): 3 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 (July)
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Claus-Jochen Haake & Matthias G. Raith & Francis Edward Su, 2002.
"Bidding for envy-freeness: A procedural approach to n-player fair-division problems,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 723-749.
- Claus-Jochen Haake & Matthias G. Raith & Francis Su, 2000. "Bidding for Envy-Freeness: A Procedural Approach to n-Player Fair Division Problems," Claremont Colleges Working Papers 2000-47, Claremont Colleges.
- Herve Moulin, 2004. "Fair Division and Collective Welfare," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262633116, December.
- Szilvia Papai, 2000. "Strategyproof Assignment by Hierarchical Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(6), pages 1403-1434, November.
- Shigehiro Serizawa, 2005.
"Pairwise Strategy-Proofness and Self-Enforcing Manipulation,"
ISER Discussion Paper
0629, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
- Shigehiro Serizawa, 2006. "Pairwise Strategy-Proofness and Self-Enforcing Manipulation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 305-331, April.
- Svensson, Lars-Gunnar, 2006.
"Coalition Strategy-Proofness and Fairness,"
2006:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
- Lars-Gunnar Svensson, 1999. "Strategy-proof allocation of indivisible goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 557-567.
- Szilvia Pápai, 2003. "Groves sealed bid auctions of heterogeneous objects with fair prices," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 371-385, 06.
- Holmstrom, Bengt, 1979. "Groves' Scheme on Restricted Domains," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1137-44, September.
- Federica Briata & Marco Dall’Aglio & Vito Fragnelli, 2012. "Dynamic Collusion and Collusion Games in Knaster’s Procedure," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 6(3), pages 199-208, October.
- Corradi, Corrado & Corradi, Valentina, 2010. "Strategic manipulations and collusions in Knaster procedure: a comment," MPRA Paper 28678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lenka Stastna).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.