IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Leonid Hurwicz, Eric Maskin, Roger Myerson et la Théorie des Mécanismes


  • Françoise Forges


Most economic decisions involve agents who do not share the same information. Suppose a planner wishes to collect the agents’ information and act for them. Is there a synthetic description of the set of all procedures available to the planner? Which are the criteria to be fulfilled by an optimal procedure? Is it possible to design a procedure which necessarily achieves a given outcome? These are topics in mechanism theory. Three prominent representatives of this theory, Leonid Hurwicz, Eric Maskin and Roger Myerson, have received in 2007 the Sveriges Riksbank prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel.

Suggested Citation

  • Françoise Forges, 2007. "Leonid Hurwicz, Eric Maskin, Roger Myerson et la Théorie des Mécanismes," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 117(6), pages 873-890.
  • Handle: RePEc:cai:repdal:redp_176_0873

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: free

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: free

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
    2. Flachaire, Emmanuel & Hollard, Guillaume, 2007. "Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 183-194, September.
    3. Alberini, Anna & Boyle, Kevin & Welsh, Michael, 2003. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 40-62, January.
    4. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    5. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2006. "Controlling Starting-Point Bias in Double-Bounded Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 103-111.
    6. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
    7. Richard C. Ready & Ståle Navrud & RW. Richard Dubourg, 2001. "How Do Respondents with Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(3), pages 315-326.
    8. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    9. John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 285-297.
    10. Li Chuan-Zhong & Mattsson Leif, 1995. "Discrete Choice under Preference Uncertainty: An Improved Structural Model for Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 256-269, March.
    11. John Crooker & Joseph Herriges, 2004. "Parametric and Semi-Nonparametric Estimation of Willingness-to-Pay in the Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(4), pages 451-480, April.
    12. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    13. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Emina Krcmar & Erwin H. Bulte, 2001. "Preference Uncertainty in Non-Market Valuation: A Fuzzy Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 487-500.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Hurwicz; Maskin; Myerson; incentive compatible mechanism; implementation;

    JEL classification:

    • P43 - Economic Systems - - Other Economic Systems - - - Finance; Public Finance


    Access and download statistics


    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:cai:repdal:redp_176_0873. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jean-Baptiste de Vathaire). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.