Maximal Domain for Strategy-Proof Rules with One Public Good
In the context of the provision of one pure public good, we raise the following question : how large can a preference domain be to allow for the existence fo strategy-proof rules satisfying the no vetoer condition? This question is qualified by the additional requirement that a domain should include " a minimal rich domain". We discuss that this requirement is weak since the conditions for minimal richness are satisfied by a variety of small domains including the class of quadratic preferences.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
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.:
- Barbera, S & Masso, J & Serizawa, S, 1996.
"Strategy-Proof Voting on Compact Ranges,"
UFAE and IAE Working Papers
358.96, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
- Kim C. Border & J. S. Jordan, 1983. "Straightforward Elections, Unanimity and Phantom Voters," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 153-170.
- Serizawa Shigehiro, 1995. "Power of Voters and Domain of Preferences Where Voting by Committees Is Strategy-Proof," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 599-608, December.
- Barbera Salvador & Gul Faruk & Stacchetti Ennio, 1993.
"Generalized Median Voter Schemes and Committees,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 262-289, December.
- 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.
- H. Moulin, 1980. "On strategy-proofness and single peakedness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 437-455, January.
- Salvador Barbera & Hugo Sonnenschein & Lin Zhou, 1990.
"Voting by Committees,"
Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers
941, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Berga, Dolors, 1998. "Strategy-proofness and single-plateaued preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 105-120, March.
- Ching, Stephen & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 1998. "A Maximal Domain for the Existence of Strategy-Proof Rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 157-166, January.
- 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).
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:90:y:2000:i:1:p:39-61. 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: (Zhang, Lei)
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.