AbstractTwo agents have to choose one of three alternatives. Their ordinal rankings of these alternatives are commonly known among them. The rankings are diametrically opposed to each other. Ex-ante efficiency requires that they reach a compromise, that is choose the alternative which they both rank second, if and only if the weighed sum of their von Neumann Morgenstern utilities from this alternative exceeds the weighted sum of utilities when either agent's most preferred alternative is chosen. We assume that the von Neumann Morgenstern utilities from this alternative exceeds the weighted sum of utilities when either agent's most preferred alternative is chosen. We ssume that the von Neumann Morgenstern utilities of the middle ranked alternative are independent and identically distributed, privately observed random variables, and ask whether there are incentive compatible decision rules which elicit utilities and implement efficient decisions. We show that no such decision rules exist if the distribution of agents' types has a density with full support. We also study the problem of finding second-best decision rules in our set-up, and explain how this problem differs from more familiar second-best problems. We give analytical and numberical insights into the nature of second-best rules. The compromise problem studied in this paper is closely related to a public goods problem in which individual agents face a liquidity constraint, but no participation constraint needs to be satisfied.
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 InfoPaper provided by Department of Economics, University of Birmingham in its series Discussion Papers with number 06-11R.
Length: 37 pages
Date of creation: Jun 2008
Date of revision:
arbitration; mechanism design without transferrable utility;
Other versions of this item:
- C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
- D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
- D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - 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.:
- Rafael Hortala-Vallve, 2007.
Economics Series Working Papers
320, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Myerson, Roger B. & Satterthwaite, Mark A., 1983.
"Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 265-281, April.
- Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
- d'ASPREMONT, Claude & GERARD-VARET, Louis-André, .
"Incentives and incomplete information,"
CORE Discussion Papers RP
-354, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Rob, R., 1988.
"Pollution Claim Settlements Under Private Information,"
19-88, Tel Aviv.
- Rob, Rafael, 1989. "Pollution claim settlements under private information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 307-333, April.
- Peter Cramton & Robert Gibbons & Paul Klemperer, 1985.
"Dissolving a Partnership Efficiently,"
406, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Cremer, Jacques & McLean, Richard P, 1985. "Optimal Selling Strategies under Uncertainty for a Discriminating Monopolist When Demands Are Interdependent," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(2), pages 345-61, March.
- Mailath, George J & Postlewaite, Andrew, 1990. "Asymmetric Information Bargaining Problems with Many Agents," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 351-67, July.
- Werner Güth & Martin Hellwig, 1986.
"The private supply of a public good,"
Journal of Economics,
Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 121-159, December.
- Paul R. Milgrom, 1985. "Auction Theory," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 779, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Bhaskar Dutta & Hans Peters & Arunava Sen, 2008.
"Strategy-proof cardinal decision schemes,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 701-702, May.
- Dutta, Bhaskar & Peter, Hans & Sen, Arunava, 2005. "Strategy-proof Cardinal Decision Schemes," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 722, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- Milgrom,Paul, 2004.
"Putting Auction Theory to Work,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521551847, October.
- Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
- Matthew O Jackson & Hugo F Sonnenschein, 2007. "Overcoming Incentive Constraints by Linking Decisions -super-1," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 241-257, 01.
- Border, Kim C, 1991. "Implementation of Reduced Form Auctions: A Geometric Approach," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(4), pages 1175-87, July.
- Bengt Holmstrom & Roger B. Myerson, 1981.
"Efficient and Durable Decision Rules with Incomplete Information,"
495, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Holmstrom, Bengt & Myerson, Roger B, 1983. "Efficient and Durable Decision Rules with Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(6), pages 1799-819, November.
- Martin F. Hellwig, 2003.
"Public-Good Provision with Many Participants,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(3), pages 589-614, 07.
- Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester & Rosa Ferrer, 2006. "On the justice of voting systems," Economics Working Papers 987, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- Borgers, Tilman & Smith, Doug, 2011.
"Robust mechanism design and dominant strategy voting rules,"
37027, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Börgers, Tilman & Smith, Doug, 2014. "Robust mechanism design and dominant strategy voting rules," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(2), May.
- Postl, Peter, 2013. "A ‘divide and choose’ approach to compromising," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 204-209.
- Schmitz, Patrick W. & Tröger, Thomas, 2011.
"The (sub-)optimality of the majority rule,"
32716, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Hanming Fang & Peter Norman, 2005.
"Overcoming Participation Constraints,"
Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers
1511R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Apr 2006.
- Fang, Hanming & Norman, Peter, 2005. "Overcoming Participation Constraints," Microeconomics.ca working papers norman-05-04-22-05-35-30, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 28 Apr 2005.
- Hanming Fang & Peter Norman, 2005. "Overcoming Participation Constraints," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1511, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Rafael Hortala-Vallve, 2010.
"Inefficiencies on linking decisions,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 471-486, March.
- Giles, Adam & Postl, Peter, 2014. "Equilibrium and effectiveness of two-parameter scoring rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 31-52.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Colin Rowat).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.