IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v140y2023icp181-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Object reallocation problems with single-dipped preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Tamura, Yuki

Abstract

For object reallocation problems, TTC is the leading rule: if preferences are strict but otherwise unrestricted, it is the only rule satisfying efficiency, the endowments lower bounds, and strategy-proofness (Ma, 1994); moreover, it is the only rule satisfying the endowments lower bounds, strategy-proofness, and endowment-swapping-proofness (Fujinaka and Wakayama, 2018). We focus on the domain of single-dipped preferences, and ask whether these results hold there. We show that they do. Returning to preferences that are strict but otherwise unrestricted, TTC is not “obviously strategy-proof” (Li, 2017). Again we ask if this remains true on the domain of single-dipped preferences, and show that on this domain, TTC does satisfy this property. Moreover, the domain of single-dipped preferences is a maximal domain on which TTC is obviously strategy-proof.

Suggested Citation

  • Tamura, Yuki, 2023. "Object reallocation problems with single-dipped preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 181-196.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:140:y:2023:i:c:p:181-196
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2023.03.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825623000386
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2023.03.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2012. "Domains, ranges and strategy-proofness: the case of single-dipped preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 335-352, July.
    2. Ashlagi, Itai & Gonczarowski, Yannai A., 2018. "Stable matching mechanisms are not obviously strategy-proof," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 405-425.
    3. Lars-Gunnar Svensson, 1999. "Strategy-proof allocation of indivisible goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(4), pages 557-567.
    4. Vikram Manjunath, 2014. "Efficient and strategy-proof social choice when preferences are single-dipped," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(3), pages 579-597, August.
    5. Shengwu Li, 2017. "Obviously Strategy-Proof Mechanisms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(11), pages 3257-3287, November.
    6. Shapley, Lloyd & Scarf, Herbert, 1974. "On cores and indivisibility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 23-37, March.
    7. Bade, Sophie, 2019. "Matching with single-peaked preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 81-99.
    8. Anno, Hidekazu, 2015. "A short proof for the characterization of the core in housing markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 66-67.
    9. Mackenzie, Andrew, 2020. "A revelation principle for obviously strategy-proof implementation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 512-533.
    10. Ma, Jinpeng, 1994. "Strategy-Proofness and the Strict Core in a Market with Indivisibilities," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 23(1), pages 75-83.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dietzenbacher, Bas & Tamura, Yuki, 2023. "Fair and efficient allocations when preferences are single-dipped," Research Memorandum 009, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    2. Dietzenbacher, Bas & Tamura, Yuki, 2023. "Stable and efficient reallocations when preferences are single-dipped," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).

    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. Yuki Tamura, 2022. "Object reallocation problems under single-peaked preferences: two characterizations of the crawler," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 51(3), pages 537-565, November.
    2. Yajing Chen & Zhenhua Jiao & Chenfeng Zhang & Luosai Zhang, 2021. "The Machiavellian frontier of top trading cycles," Papers 2106.14456, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    3. Mackenzie, Andrew & Zhou, Yu, 2022. "Menu mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    4. Tamura, Yuki & Hosseini, Hadi, 2022. "The crawler: Three equivalence results for object (re)allocation problems when preferences are single-peaked," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    5. Chen, Yajing & Zhao, Fang, 2021. "Alternative characterizations of the top trading cycles rule in housing markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    6. Yannai A. Gonczarowski & Clayton Thomas, 2022. "Structural Complexities of Matching Mechanisms," Papers 2212.08709, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    7. Clayton Thomas, 2020. "Classification of Priorities Such That Deferred Acceptance is Obviously Strategyproof," Papers 2011.12367, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2021.
    8. Fujinaka, Yuji & Wakayama, Takuma, 2018. "Endowments-swapping-proof house allocation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 187-202.
    9. Mandal, Pinaki & Roy, Souvik, 2022. "On obviously strategy-proof implementation of fixed priority top trading cycles with outside options," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    10. Di Feng, 2023. "Efficiency in Multiple-Type Housing Markets," Papers 2308.14989, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    11. Louis Golowich & Shengwu Li, 2021. "On the Computational Properties of Obviously Strategy-Proof Mechanisms," Papers 2101.05149, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    12. Alvin E. Roth & Tayfun Sönmez & M. Utku Ünver, 2004. "Kidney Exchange," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(2), pages 457-488.
    13. Pablo Guillen & Róbert F. Veszteg, 2021. "Strategy-proofness in experimental matching markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 650-668, June.
    14. Takamiya, Koji, 2001. "Coalition strategy-proofness and monotonicity in Shapley-Scarf housing markets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 201-213, March.
    15. Arribillaga, R. Pablo & Massó, Jordi & Neme, Alejandro, 2023. "All sequential allotment rules are obviously strategy-proof," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(3), July.
    16. Yannai A. Gonczarowski & Ori Heffetz & Clayton Thomas, 2022. "Strategyproofness-Exposing Mechanism Descriptions," Papers 2209.13148, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    17. Patrick Harless & William Phan, 2020. "On endowments and indivisibility: partial ownership in the Shapley–Scarf model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(2), pages 411-435, September.
    18. Kazuhiko Hashimoto, 2018. "Strategy-proofness and identical preferences lower bound in allocation problem of indivisible objects," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(4), pages 1045-1078, June.
    19. Liu, Peng & Zeng, Huaxia, 2019. "Random assignments on preference domains with a tier structure," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 176-194.
    20. Yuji Fujinaka & Takuma Wakayama, 2011. "Secure implementation in Shapley–Scarf housing markets," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(1), pages 147-169, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Object reallocation problems; Single-dipped preferences; TTC; Obvious strategy-proofness;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Market Design

    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:eee:gamebe:v:140:y:2023:i:c:p:181-196. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    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.