Foundations of Dominant-Strategy Mechanisms
AbstractRobert Wilson criticizes applied game theory's reliance on common-knowledge assumptions. In reaction to Wilson's critique, the recent literature of mechanism design has adopted the goal of finding detail-free mechanisms in order to eliminate this reliance. In practice this has meant restricting attention to simple mechanisms such as dominant-strategy mechanisms. However, there has been little theoretical foundation for this approach. In particular it is not clear the search for an optimal mechanism that does not rely on common-knowledge assumption would lead to simpler mechanisms rather than more complicated ones. This paper tries to fill the void. In the context of an expected revenue maximizing auctioneer, we investigate some foundations for using simple, dominant-strategy auctions. Copyright 2007, Wiley-Blackwell.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Oxford University Press in its journal The Review of Economic Studies.
Volume (Year): 74 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Contact details of provider:
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Bergemann, Dirk & Morris, Stephen, 2009.
"Robust virtual implementation,"
Econometric Society, vol. 4(1), March.
- Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris, 2007. "Robust Virtual Implementation," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1609RR, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jan 2009.
- Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris, 2009. "Robust Virtual Implementation," Levine's Working Paper Archive 814577000000000155, David K. Levine.
- Ghossoub, Mario, 2010. "Belief heterogeneity in the Arrow-Borch-Raviv insurance model," MPRA Paper 37630, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 22 Mar 2012.
- Neeman, Zvika & Pavlov, Gregory, 2013. "Ex post renegotiation-proof mechanism design," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(2), pages 473-501.
- Schmitz, Patrick W. & Tröger, Thomas, 2011.
"The (sub-)optimality of the majority rule,"
32716, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Krähmer, Daniel, 2012. "Auction design with endogenously correlated buyer types," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 118-141.
- Farinha Luz, Vitor, 2013. "Surplus extraction with rich type spaces," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(6), pages 2749-2762.
- Peter Postl, 2010. "Dominant Strategy Compromises," Discussion Papers 10-12, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
- Haan, Marco A. & Heijnen, Pim & Schoonbeek, Lambert & Toolsema, Linda A., 2012.
"Sound taxation? On the use of self-declared value,"
European Economic Review,
Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 205-215.
- Meyer-ter-Vehn, Moritz & Morris, Stephen, 2011. "The robustness of robust implementation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(5), pages 2093-2104, September.
- Turocy, Theodore L., 2008. "Auction choice for ambiguity-averse sellers facing strategic uncertainty," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 155-179, January.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.