IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v82y2013icp218-239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Group strategyproof cost sharing: The role of indifferences

Author

Listed:
  • Juarez, Ruben

Abstract

Every agent reports his willingness to pay for one unit of a good. A mechanism allocates goods and cost shares to some agents. We characterize the group strategyproof (GSP) mechanisms under two alternative continuity conditions interpreted as tie-breaking rules. With the maximalist rule (MAX) an indifferent agent is always served. With the minimalist rule (MIN) an indifferent agent does not get a unit of the good.

Suggested Citation

  • Juarez, Ruben, 2013. "Group strategyproof cost sharing: The role of indifferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 218-239.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:82:y:2013:i:c:p:218-239
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2013.07.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825613001073
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2013.07.005?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lars Ehlers & Bettina Klaus, 2003. "Coalitional strategy-proof and resource-monotonic solutions for multiple assignment problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(2), pages 265-280, October.
    2. Szilvia Papai, 2000. "Strategyproof Assignment by Hierarchical Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(6), pages 1403-1434, November.
    3. Hervé Moulin & Scott Shenker, 2001. "Strategyproof sharing of submodular costs:budget balance versus efficiency," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 18(3), pages 511-533.
    4. Dutta, Bhaskar & Ray, Debraj, 1989. "A Concept of Egalitarianism under Participation Constraints," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 615-635, May.
    5. Itai Ashlagi & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2012. "Characterizing Vickrey allocation rule by anonymity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(3), pages 531-542, March.
    6. ,, 2003. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(4), pages 691-705, August.
    7. Lars-Gunnar Svensson & Bo Larsson, 2002. "Strategy-proof and nonbossy allocation of indivisible goods and money," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(3), pages 483-502.
    8. ,, 2003. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 225-228, February.
    9. Mehta, Aranyak & Roughgarden, Tim & Sundararajan, Mukund, 2009. "Beyond Moulin mechanisms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 125-155, September.
    10. Moulin Herve & Shenker Scott, 1994. "Average Cost Pricing versus Serial Cost Sharing: An Axiomatic Comparison," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 178-201, October.
    11. ,, 2003. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(5), pages 879-883, October.
    12. ,, 2003. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 411-413, April.
    13. Sprumont, Yves, 1990. "Population monotonic allocation schemes for cooperative games with transferable utility," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 378-394, December.
    14. Deb, Rajat & Razzolini, Laura, 1999. "Voluntary cost sharing for an excludable public project," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 123-138, March.
    15. Schummer, James, 2000. "Manipulation through Bribes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 180-198, April.
    16. ,, 2003. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(6), pages 1195-1198, December.
    17. HervÊ Moulin, 1999. "Incremental cost sharing: Characterization by coalition strategy-proofness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(2), pages 279-320.
    18. Mutuswami, Suresh, 2005. "Strategyproofness, Non-Bossiness and Group Strategyproofness in a cost sharing model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 83-88, October.
    19. Ehlers, Lars, 2002. "Coalitional Strategy-Proof House Allocation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 298-317, August.
    20. Ruben Juarez, 2008. "The worst absolute surplus loss in the problem of commons: random priority versus average cost," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 34(1), pages 69-84, January.
    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. Ruben Juarez & Michael Wu, 2019. "Routing-Proofness in Congestion-Prone Networks," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Hiroki Shinozaki, 2022. "Characterizing pairwise strategy-proof rules in object allocation problems with money," ISER Discussion Paper 1187, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    3. Juarez, Ruben & Ko, Chiu Yu & Xue, Jingyi, 2018. "Sharing sequential values in a network," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 734-779.
    4. Ruben Juarez & Rajnish Kumar, 2013. "Implementing efficient graphs in connection networks," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(2), pages 359-403, October.
    5. Kazuhiko Hashimoto & Hiroki Saitoh, 2016. "Strategy-proof rules for an excludable public good," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(4), pages 749-766, April.
    6. Dütting, Paul & Talgam-Cohen, Inbal & Roughgarden, Tim, 2017. "Modularity and greed in double auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 59-83.
    7. Dütting, Paul & Talgam-Cohen, Inbal & Roughgarden, Tim, 2017. "Modularity and greed in double auctions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 83199, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Mehta, Aranyak & Roughgarden, Tim & Sundararajan, Mukund, 2009. "Beyond Moulin mechanisms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 125-155, September.
    9. Karl Jandoc & Ruben Juarez, 2019. "An Experimental Study of Self-Enforcing Coalitions," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-32, August.
    10. Jin Li & Jingyi Xue, 2013. "Egalitarian division under Leontief Preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(3), pages 597-622, November.
    11. Paul Dütting & Vasilis Gkatzelis & Tim Roughgarden, 2017. "The Performance of Deferred-Acceptance Auctions," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 897-914, November.
    12. Karl Jandoc & Ruben Juarez, 2017. "Self-enforcing coalitions with power accumulation," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(2), pages 327-355, May.
    13. Han, Lining & Juarez, Ruben, 2018. "Free intermediation in resource transmission," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 75-84.
    14. Mackenzie, Andrew & Trudeau, Christian, 2018. "Club good mechanisms: from free-riders to citizen-shareholders, from impossibility to characterization," Research Memorandum 012, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    15. Hagen, Martin, 2023. "Collusion-proof mechanisms for multi-unit procurement," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 281-298.
    16. Mackenzie, Andrew & Trudeau, Christian, 2023. "On Groves mechanisms for costly inclusion," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(3), July.
    17. Juarez, Ruben & Nitta, Kohei & Vargas, Miguel, 2021. "Coalitional efficient profit-sharing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    18. Dobzinski, Shahar & Mehta, Aranyak & Roughgarden, Tim & Sundararajan, Mukund, 2018. "Is Shapley cost sharing optimal?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 130-138.

    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. Roth, Alvin E. & Sonmez, Tayfun & Utku Unver, M., 2005. "Pairwise kidney exchange," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 151-188, December.
    2. Sonmez, Tayfun & Utku Unver, M., 2005. "House allocation with existing tenants: an equivalence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 153-185, July.
    3. Lars Ehlers & Bettina Klaus, 2003. "Resource-Monotonicity for House Allocation," Working Papers 33, Barcelona School of Economics.
    4. Papai, Szilvia, 2007. "Exchange in a general market with indivisible goods," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 208-235, January.
    5. Bettina Klaus & Alexandru Nichifor, 2020. "Serial dictatorship mechanisms with reservation prices," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 665-684, October.
    6. Shuhei Morimoto & Shigehiro Serizawa & Stephen Ching, 2013. "A characterization of the uniform rule with several commodities and agents," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 871-911, March.
    7. Monte, Daniel & Tumennasan, Norovsambuu, 2015. "Centralized allocation in multiple markets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 74-85.
    8. Kojima, Fuhito, 2013. "Efficient resource allocation under multi-unit demand," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-14.
    9. Antonio Romero-Medina & Matteo Triossi, 2017. "(Group) Strategy-proofness and stability in many-to many marching markets," Documentos de Trabajo 332, Centro de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Chile.
    10. Mireille Ducassé & Peggy Cellier, 2016. "Using Bids, Arguments and Preferences in Sensitive Multi-unit Assignments: A p-Equitable Process and a Course Allocation Case Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1211-1235, November.
    11. Nguyen, Thành & Peivandi, Ahmad & Vohra, Rakesh, 2016. "Assignment problems with complementarities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 209-241.
    12. Pinaki Mandal, 2022. "Simple dominance of fixed priority top trading cycles," Papers 2204.02154, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2023.
    13. Martin Bichler & Soeren Merting, 2021. "Randomized Scheduling Mechanisms: Assigning Course Seats in a Fair and Efficient Way," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(10), pages 3540-3559, October.
    14. Kojima, Fuhito, 2009. "Random assignment of multiple indivisible objects," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 134-142, January.
    15. Martínez, Ruth & Massó, Jordi & Neme, Alejandro & Oviedo, Jorge, 2010. "The Blocking Lemma for a many-to-one matching model," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 937-949, September.
    16. Doğan, Battal, 2016. "Responsive affirmative action in school choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 69-105.
    17. Di Feng & Bettina Klaus, 2022. "Preference revelation games and strict cores of multiple‐type housing market problems," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 18(1), pages 61-76, March.
    18. Chen, Yajing & Jiao, Zhenhua & Zhang, Yang & Zhao, Fang, 2021. "Resource allocation on the basis of priorities under multi-unit demand," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    19. Eduardo M Azevedo & Eric Budish, 2019. "Strategy-proofness in the Large," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 81-116.
    20. Manjunath, Vikram, 2012. "When too little is as good as nothing at all: Rationing a disposable good among satiable people with acceptance thresholds," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 576-587.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost sharing; Mechanism design; Group strategyproof; Tie-breaking rule;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism 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:82:y:2013:i:c:p:218-239. 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.