IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2011.04306.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ordinal Intensity-Efficient Allocations

Author

Listed:
  • Georgios Gerasimou

Abstract

We study the assignment problem in situations where, in addition to having ordinal preferences, agents also have *ordinal intensities*: they can make simple and internally consistent comparisons such as "I prefer $a$ to $b$ more than I prefer $c$ to $d$" without necessarily being able to quantify them. In this new informational social-choice environment we first introduce a rank-based criterion that enables interpersonal comparability of such ordinal intensities. Building on this criterion, we define an allocation to be *"intensity-efficient"* if it is Pareto efficient with respect to the preferences induced by the agents' intensities and also such that, when another allocation assigns the same pairs of items to the same pairs of agents but in a "flipped" way, the former allocation assigns the commonly preferred item in every such pair to the agent who prefers it more. We present some first results on the (non-)existence of such allocations without imposing restrictions on preferences or intensities other than strictness.

Suggested Citation

  • Georgios Gerasimou, 2020. "Ordinal Intensity-Efficient Allocations," Papers 2011.04306, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2011.04306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.04306
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Zuber, 2021. "Fair Utilitarianism," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 370-401, May.
    2. Georgios Gerasimou, 2019. "Simple Preference Intensity Comparisons," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201905, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews, revised 27 Apr 2020.
    3. Yeon-Koo Che & Ian Gale & Jinwoo Kim, 2013. "Assigning Resources to Budget-Constrained Agents," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(1), pages 73-107.
    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. Martin Ravallion, 2022. "On the Gains from Tradable Benefits‐in‐kind: Evidence for Workfare in India," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(355), pages 770-787, July.
    2. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Moulin, Herve, 2015. "Size versus fairness in the assignment problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 119-127.
    3. Katharina Huesmann & Achim Wambach, 2015. "Constraints on Matching Markets Based on Moral Concerns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5356, CESifo.
    4. Condorelli, Daniele, 2013. "Market and non-market mechanisms for the optimal allocation of scarce resources," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 582-591.
    5. Tymofiy Mylovanov & Andriy Zapechelnyuk, 2017. "Optimal Allocation with Ex Post Verification and Limited Penalties," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(9), pages 2666-2694, September.
    6. Martin Ravallion, 2021. "On the Gains from Tradeable Benefits-in-Kind," Working Papers gueconwpa~21-21-13, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
    7. Suwei Feng & Qiang Li, 2018. "Evaluating the car ownership control policy in Shanghai: a structural vector auto-regression approach," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 205-232, January.
    8. Holzer, Jorge & McConnell, Kenneth, 2023. "Extraction rights allocation with liquidity constraints," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    9. Heinzel, Christoph, 2023. "Comparing utility derivative premia under additive and multiplicative risks," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 23-40.
    10. Ghosh, Gagan, 2021. "Simultaneous auctions with budgets: Equilibrium existence and characterization," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 75-93.
    11. Andrzej Baranski & David J. Cooper & Guillaume Fréchette, 2024. "Introduction to the special issue in honor of John H. Kagel," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-8, March.
    12. Georgios Gerasimou, 2019. "Simple Preference Intensity Comparisons," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201905, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews, revised 27 Apr 2020.
    13. Pai, Mallesh M. & Vohra, Rakesh, 2014. "Optimal auctions with financially constrained buyers," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 383-425.
    14. Che, Yeon-Koo & Gale, Ian & Kim, Jinwoo, 2013. "Efficient assignment mechanisms for liquidity-constrained agents," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 659-665.
    15. Jianxin Rong & Ning Sun & Dazhong Wang, 2019. "A New Evaluation Criterion for Allocation Mechanisms with Application to Vehicle License Allocations in China," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 4(1), pages 39-86, November.
    16. Richter, Michael, 2019. "Mechanism design with budget constraints and a population of agents," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 30-47.
    17. Carbajal, Juan Carlos & Mu'alem, Ahuva, 2020. "Selling mechanisms for a financially constrained buyer," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 386-405.
    18. Jianfu Shen & Frederik Pretorius & K. W. Chau, 2018. "Land Auctions with Budget Constraints," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 443-471, April.
    19. Boulatov, Alexei & Severinov, Sergei, 2021. "Optimal and efficient mechanisms with asymmetrically budget constrained buyers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 155-178.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:2011.04306. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.