IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v69y2014icp43-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Least manipulable Envy-free rules in economies with indivisibilities

Author

Listed:
  • Andersson, Tommy
  • Ehlers, Lars
  • Svensson, Lars-Gunnar

Abstract

We consider envy-free and budget-balanced allocation rules for problems where a number of indivisible objects and a fixed amount of money is allocated among a group of agents. In finite economies, we identify under classical preferences each agent’s maximal gain from manipulation. Using this result we find the envy-free and budget-balanced allocation rules which are least manipulable for each preference profile in terms of any agent’s maximal gain. If preferences are quasi-linear, then we can find an envy-free and budget-balanced allocation rule such that for any problem, the maximal utility gain from manipulation is equalized among all agents.

Suggested Citation

  • Andersson, Tommy & Ehlers, Lars & Svensson, Lars-Gunnar, 2014. "Least manipulable Envy-free rules in economies with indivisibilities," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 43-49.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:69:y:2014:i:c:p:43-49
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2014.01.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165489614000171
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2014.01.006?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 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. Stefan Maus & Hans Peters & Ton Storcken, 2007. "Minimal manipulability: anonymity and unanimity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(2), pages 247-269, September.
    2. Sun, Ning & Yang, Zaifu, 2003. "A general strategy proof fair allocation mechanism," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 73-79, October.
    3. Svensson, Lars-Gunnar, 1983. "Large Indivisibles: An Analysis with Respect to Price Equilibrium and Fairness," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 939-954, July.
    4. Jackson, Matthew O. & Manelli, Alejandro M., 1997. "Approximately Competitive Equilibria in Large Finite Economies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 354-376, December.
    5. Maus, Stefan & Peters, Hans & Storcken, Ton, 2007. "Anonymous voting and minimal manipulability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 533-544, July.
    6. Andersson, Tommy & Svensson, Lars-Gunnar, 2008. "Non-manipulable assignment of individuals to positions revisited," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 350-354, November.
    7. Lars-Gunnar Svensson, 2009. "Coalitional strategy-proofness and fairness," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(2), pages 227-245, August.
    8. Paula Jaramillo & Çaǧatay Kayı & Flip Klijn, 2014. "Asymmetrically fair rules for an indivisible good problem with a budget constraint," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(3), pages 603-633, October.
    9. Serizawa, Shigehiro & Weymark, John A., 2003. "Efficient strategy-proof exchange and minimum consumption guarantees," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 246-263, April.
    10. Jackson, Matthew O., 1992. "Incentive compatibility and competitive allocations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 299-302, November.
    11. , & , & ,, 2014. "Budget-balance, fairness and minimal manipulability," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(3), September.
    12. Cordoba, Jose M. & Hammond, Peter J., 1998. "Asymptotically strategy-proof Walrasian exchange," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 185-212, December.
    13. Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
    14. Kovalenkov, Alexander, 2002. "Simple Strategy-Proof Approximately Walrasian Mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 475-487, April.
    15. Parag A. Pathak & Tayfun Sönmez, 2013. "School Admissions Reform in Chicago and England: Comparing Mechanisms by Their Vulnerability to Manipulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 80-106, February.
    16. Roberts, Donald John & Postlewaite, Andrew, 1976. "The Incentives for Price-Taking Behavior in Large Exchange Economies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(1), pages 115-127, January.
    17. Alkan, Ahmet & Demange, Gabrielle & Gale, David, 1991. "Fair Allocation of Indivisible Goods and Criteria of Justice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(4), pages 1023-1039, July.
    18. Toru Hokari & William Thomson, 2003. "Claims problems and weighted generalizations of the Talmud rule," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 21(2), pages 241-261, March.
    19. Tadenuma Koichi & Thomson William, 1995. "Games of Fair Division," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 191-204, May.
    20. Flip Klijn, 2000. "An algorithm for envy-free allocations in an economy with indivisible objects and money," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 17(2), pages 201-215.
    21. Velez, Rodrigo A., 2011. "Are incentives against economic justice?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 326-345, January.
    22. Claus-Jochen Haake & Matthias G. Raith & Francis Edward Su, 2002. "Bidding for envy-freeness: A procedural approach to n-player fair-division problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(4), pages 723-749.
    23. Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
    24. Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2002. "Inefficiency of Strategy-Proof Rules for Pure Exchange Economies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 219-241, October.
    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. Somouaoga Bonkoungou & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2020. "Comparing School Choice and College Admission Mechanisms By Their Immunity to Strategic Admissions," Papers 2001.06166, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2020.
    2. Rodrigo A. Velez, 2017. "Sharing an increase of the rent fairly," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 59-80, January.
    3. Bonkoungou, Somouaoga & Nesterov, Alexander, 2023. "Incentives in matching markets: counting and comparing manipulating agents," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(3), July.
    4. Tommy Andersson & Lars Ehlers, 2022. "An algorithm for identifying least manipulable envy‐free and budget‐balanced allocations in economies with indivisibilities," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 18(1), pages 50-60, March.
    5. Benoit Decerf & Francois Woitrin, 2022. "Criteria to compare mechanisms that partially satisfy a property: an axiomatic study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(4), pages 835-862, May.
    6. Fujinaka, Yuji & Wakayama, Takuma, 2015. "Maximal manipulation of envy-free solutions in economies with indivisible goods and money," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PA), pages 165-185.
    7. Nicolò, Antonio & Velez, Rodrigo A., 2017. "Divide and compromise," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 100-110.
    8. Tommy ANDERSSON & Lars EHLERS, 2013. "An Algorithm for Identifying Agent-k-Linked Allocations in Economies with Indivisibilities," Cahiers de recherche 17-2013, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    9. Martin Van der Linden, 2019. "Deferred acceptance is minimally manipulable," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(2), pages 609-645, June.
    10. Rodrigo A. Velez, 2017. "Equitable rent division," Working Papers 20170818-001, Texas A&M University, Department of Economics.
    11. DECERF, Benoit & VAN DER LINDEN, Martin, 2016. "A criterion to compare mechanisms when solutions are not unique, with applications to constrained school choice," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2016033, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    12. Velez, Rodrigo A., 2023. "Equitable rent division on a soft budget," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1-14.
    13. Rodrigo A. Velez, 2019. "Expressive mechanisms for equitable rent division on a budget," Papers 1902.02935, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2020.
    14. Yi, Jianxin & Li, Yong, 2016. "A general impossibility theorem and its application to individual rights," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 79-86.

    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. ANDERSSON, Tommy & EHLERS, Lars & SVENSSON, Lars-Gunnar, 2012. "(Minimally) 'epsilon'-Incentive Compatible Competitive Equilibria in Economies with Indivisibilities," Cahiers de recherche 2012-03, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
    2. Tommy Andersson & Lars Ehlers & Lars-Gunnar Svensson, 2012. "(Minimally) ?-Incentive Compatible Competitive Equilibria in Economies with Indivisibilities," Cahiers de recherche 04-2012, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    3. , & , & ,, 2014. "Budget-balance, fairness and minimal manipulability," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(3), September.
    4. Tommy ANDERSSON & Lars EHLERS, 2013. "An Algorithm for Identifying Agent-k-Linked Allocations in Economies with Indivisibilities," Cahiers de recherche 17-2013, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    5. Tommy Andersson & Lars Ehlers, 2022. "An algorithm for identifying least manipulable envy‐free and budget‐balanced allocations in economies with indivisibilities," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 18(1), pages 50-60, March.
    6. Fujinaka, Yuji & Wakayama, Takuma, 2015. "Maximal manipulation of envy-free solutions in economies with indivisible goods and money," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PA), pages 165-185.
    7. Rodrigo A. Velez, 2019. "Expressive mechanisms for equitable rent division on a budget," Papers 1902.02935, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2020.
    8. Rodrigo A. Velez, 2017. "Equitable rent division," Working Papers 20170818-001, Texas A&M University, Department of Economics.
    9. Paula Jaramillo & Çaǧatay Kayı & Flip Klijn, 2014. "Asymmetrically fair rules for an indivisible good problem with a budget constraint," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(3), pages 603-633, October.
    10. Tommy Andersson & Christer Andersson, 2009. "Solving House Allocation Problems with Risk-Averse Agents," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 33(4), pages 389-401, May.
    11. Velez, Rodrigo A., 2015. "Sincere and sophisticated players in an equal-income market," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 1114-1129.
    12. Rodrigo A. Velez, 2022. "A polynomial algorithm for maxmin and minmax envy-free rent division on a soft budget," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 93-118, July.
    13. Velez, Rodrigo A., 2023. "Equitable rent division on a soft budget," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1-14.
    14. Nicolò, Antonio & Velez, Rodrigo A., 2017. "Divide and compromise," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 100-110.
    15. Azacis, Helmuts, 2008. "Double implementation in a market for indivisible goods with a price constraint," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 140-154, January.
    16. Rodrigo A. Velez, 2017. "Sharing an increase of the rent fairly," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 59-80, January.
    17. Lars-Gunnar Svensson, 2009. "Coalitional strategy-proofness and fairness," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(2), pages 227-245, August.
    18. Brown, Alexander L. & Velez, Rodrigo A., 2016. "The costs and benefits of symmetry in common-ownership allocation problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 115-131.
    19. Salvador Barberà, 2010. "Strategy-proof social choice," Working Papers 420, Barcelona School of Economics.
    20. Nanyang Bu, 2016. "Joint misrepresentation with bribes," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 61(1), pages 115-125, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation

    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:matsoc:v:69:y:2014:i:c:p:43-49. 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/505565 .

    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.