New variable-population paradoxes for resource allocation
AbstractWe identify previously unnoticed ways in which agents can strategically distort allocation rules, by affecting the set of “active” agents. (i) An agent withdraws with his endowment. (ii) He gives control of his endowment to someone else and withdraws. (iii) He invites someone in and let him use some of his endowment. (iv) He pre-delivers to some other agent the net trade that the rule would assign to that second agent if that second agent had participated. In (i) and (ii), he and his co-conspirator may end up controlling resources that allow them to reach higher welfare levels than they otherwise would. In (iii) and (iv), he may end up with a bundle that he prefers to the one he would have been assigned had he not engaged in the manipulation. We show that (i) the Walrasian rule is not “withdrawing-proof”, nor “endowments-merging–proof, nor “endowments-splitting–proof”, but that it is “pre-delivery–proof”, and that (ii) canonical selections from the egalitarian-equivalence-in-trades solutions satisfy none of the properties.
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 University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER) in its series RCER Working Papers with number 575.
Length: 22 pages
Date of creation: Sep 2012
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: University of Rochester, Center for Economic Research, Department of Economics, Harkness 231 Rochester, New York 14627 U.S.A.
resource allocation rules; withdrawal-proofness; endowments-merging–proofness; endowments-splitting–proofness; pre-delivery–proofness;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
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.:
- Ju, Biung-Ghi & Miyagawa, Eiichi & Sakai, Toyotaka, 2007.
"Non-manipulable division rules in claim problems and generalizations,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 1-26, January.
- Biung-Ghi Ju & Eiichi Miyagawa & Toyotaka Sakai, 2003. "Non-Manipulable Division Rules in Claim Problems and Generalizations," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 200307, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2005.
- Biung-Ghi Ju & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2006.
"Progressivity, Inequality Reduction, and Merging-Proofness in Taxation,"
WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS
200603, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2006.
- JU, Biung-Ghi & MORENO-TERNERO, Juan D., 2006. "Progressivity, inequality reduction and merging-proofness in taxation," CORE Discussion Papers 2006075, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- M. Angeles de Frutos, 1999. "Coalitional manipulations in a bankruptcy problem," Review of Economic Design, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 255-272.
- Sertel, Murat & Yildiz, Muhamet, 2004. "Core is manipulable via segmentation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 103-117, September.
- Sonmez, Tayfun, 1999. "Can Pre-arranged Matches Be Avoided in Two-Sided Matching Markets?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 148-156, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gabriel Mihalache).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.