A sufficient condition for the equivalence of strategy-proofness and nonmanipulability by preferences adjacent to the sincere one
I consider whether the agentsʼ reluctance to make a large lie is helpful for the rule designer to construct a nonmanipulable rule. For this purpose, I study an axiom, called AM-proofness, saying that manipulation cannot occur through preferences adjacent to the sincere one. Through examples, I give rationales for AM-proofness. My main result is a sufficient condition on a domain for the equivalence of AM-proofness and strategy-proofness. I show that the sufficient condition is satisfied by the universal domain and the domain of single-peaked preferences. Over such domains, all results about strategy-proofness can be restated with AM-proofness.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- James Schummer, 1997.
"Manipulation Through Bribes,"
1207, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Donald Campbell & Jerry Kelly, 2009. "Gains from manipulating social choice rules," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 349-371, September.
- Sen, Amartya Kumar, 1970. "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal," Scholarly Articles 3612779, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Barbera, S. & Sonnenschein, H., 1988.
"Voting By Quota And Committee,"
UFAE and IAE Working Papers
95-88, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
- Sen, Amartya, 1970. "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(1), pages 152-57, Jan.-Feb..
- Ehud Kalai & Eitan Muller, 1977.
"Characterization of Domains Admitting Nondictatorial Social Welfare Functions and Nonmanipulable Voting Procedures,"
234, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Kalai, Ehud & Muller, Eitan, 1977. "Characterization of domains admitting nondictatorial social welfare functions and nonmanipulable voting procedures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 457-469, December.
- Barbera, Salvador & Dutta, Bhaskar & Sen, Arunava, 2005.
"Corrigendum to "Strategy-proof social choice correspondences" [J. Econ. Theory 101 (2001) 374-394],"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 275-275, February.
- Shurojit Chatterji & Arunava Sen, 2011.
Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 255-282, February.
- Gabriel Carroll, 2012. "When Are Local Incentive Constraints Sufficient?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 661-686, 03.
- Le Breton, Michel & Zaporozhets, Vera, 2006.
"On the Equivalence of Coalitional and Individual Strategy-Proofness Properties,"
IDEI Working Papers
408, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
- Michel Breton & Vera Zaporozhets, 2009. "On the equivalence of coalitional and individual strategy-proofness properties," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(2), pages 287-309, August.
- H. Moulin, 1980. "On strategy-proofness and single peakedness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 437-455, January.
- 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.
- Shin Sato, 2010. "Circular domains," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 14(3), pages 331-342, September.
- Salvador Barbera & Hugo Sonnenschein & Lin Zhou, 1990.
"Voting by Committees,"
Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers
941, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Barberà, Salvador & Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2010.
"Individual versus group strategy-proofness: When do they coincide?,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1648-1674, September.
- Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2009. "Individual versus group strategy proofedness: when do they coincide?," Working Papers 372, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
- Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2009. "Individual versus group strategy-proofness: when do they coincide?," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 761.09, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
- ASWAL, Navin & CHATTERJI, Shurojit & SEN, Arunava, 1999.
CORE Discussion Papers
1999040, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "A characterization of superdictatorial domains for strategy-proof social choice functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 257-260, December.
- Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
- Özyurt, Selçuk & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2009. "A general impossibility result on strategy-proof social choice hyperfunctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 880-892, July.
- Shigehiro Serizawa, 2005.
"Pairwise Strategy-Proofness and Self-Enforcing Manipulation,"
ISER Discussion Paper
0629, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
- Shigehiro Serizawa, 2006. "Pairwise Strategy-Proofness and Self-Enforcing Manipulation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(2), pages 305-331, April.
- Reny, Philip J., 2001. "Arrow's theorem and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem: a unified approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 99-105, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:148:y:2013:i:1:p:259-278. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.