IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v58y1991i1p107-119..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impossibility of Strategy-Proof Mechanisms in Economies with Pure Public Goods

Author

Listed:
  • Lin Zhou

Abstract

This paper investigates the structures of strategy-proof mechanisms in general models of economies with pure public goods. Under the assumptions that the set of allocations is a subset of some finite-dimensional Euclidean space and that the admissible preferencees are continuous and convex, I establish that any strategy-proof mechanism is dictatorial whenever the decision problem is of more than one dimension. Furthermore, I establish a similar result when preference relations also satisfy the additional assumption of monotonicity. These results properly extend the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem to economies with pure public goods.

Suggested Citation

  • Lin Zhou, 1991. "Impossibility of Strategy-Proof Mechanisms in Economies with Pure Public Goods," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(1), pages 107-119.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:58:y:1991:i:1:p:107-119.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/2298048
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    More about this item

    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:oup:restud:v:58:y:1991:i:1:p:107-119.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/restud .

    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.