IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormoor/v46y2021i1p382-403.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competitive Equilibrium with Indivisible Goods and Generic Budgets

Author

Listed:
  • Moshe Babaioff

    (Microsoft Research, Herzliya 4672513, Israel;)

  • Noam Nisan

    (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9190401, Israel;)

  • Inbal Talgam-Cohen

    (Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3200003, Israel)

Abstract

Competitive equilibrium from equal incomes (CEEI) is a classic solution to the problem of fair and efficient allocation of goods (Foley 1967, Varian 1974). Every agent receives an equal budget of artificial currency with which to purchase goods, and prices match demand and supply. However, a CEEI is not guaranteed to exist when the goods are indivisible even in the simple two-agent, single-item market. Yet it is easy to see that, once the two budgets are slightly perturbed (made generic ), a competitive equilibrium does exist. In this paper, we aim to extend this approach beyond the single-item case and study the existence of equilibria in markets with two agents and additive preferences over multiple items. We show that, for agents with equal budgets, making the budgets generic—by adding vanishingly small random perturbations—ensures the existence of equilibrium. We further consider agents with arbitrary nonequal budgets, representing non equal entitlements for goods. We show that competitive equilibrium guarantees a new notion of fairness among nonequal agents and that it exists in cases of interest (such as when the agents have identical preferences) if budgets are perturbed. Our results open opportunities for future research on generic equilibrium existence and fair treatment of nonequals.

Suggested Citation

  • Moshe Babaioff & Noam Nisan & Inbal Talgam-Cohen, 2021. "Competitive Equilibrium with Indivisible Goods and Generic Budgets," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 382-403, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormoor:v:46:y:2021:i:1:p:382-403
    DOI: 10.1287/moor.2020.1062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.2020.1062
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/moor.2020.1062?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William C. Brainard & Herbert E. Scarf, 2005. "How to Compute Equilibrium Prices in 1891," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(1), pages 57-83, January.
    2. Eric Budish & Estelle Cantillon, 2012. "The Multi-unit Assignment Problem: Theory and Evidence from Course Allocation at Harvard," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2237-2271, August.
    3. E. Eisenberg, 1961. "Aggregation of Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 337-350, July.
    4. Moulin, Herve, 2002. "Axiomatic cost and surplus sharing," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 289-357, Elsevier.
    5. Gabrielle Demange & Ahmet Alkan & David Gale, 1991. "Fair Allocation of Indivisible Goods and Money and Criteria of Justice," Post-Print halshs-00670945, HAL.
    6. 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.
    7. Satoru Fujishige & Zaifu Yang, 2002. "Existence of an Equilibrium in a General Competitive Exchange Economy with Indivisible Goods and Money," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 3(1), pages 135-147, May.
    8. Steven Brams & Michael Jones & Christian Klamler, 2008. "Proportional pie-cutting," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 36(3), pages 353-367, March.
    9. Shapley, Lloyd & Scarf, Herbert, 1974. "On cores and indivisibility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 23-37, March.
    10. Mas-Colell, Andreu, 1977. "Indivisible commodities and general equilibrium theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 443-456, December.
    11. Anna Bogomolnaia & Hervé Moulin & Fedor Sandomirskiy & Elena Yanovskaia, 2019. "Dividing bads under additive utilities," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(3), pages 395-417, March.
    12. Eric Budish, 2011. "The Combinatorial Assignment Problem: Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(6), pages 1061-1103.
    13. Varian, Hal R., 1974. "Equity, envy, and efficiency," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 63-91, September.
    14. John Winsor Pratt & Richard Jay Zeckhauser, 1990. "The Fair and Efficient Division of the Winsor Family Silver," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(11), pages 1293-1301, November.
    15. Eric S. Maskin, 1987. "On the Fair Allocation of Indivisible Goods," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: George R. Feiwel (ed.), Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy, chapter 11, pages 341-349, Palgrave Macmillan.
    16. Dierker, Egbert, 1971. "Equilibrium Analysis of Exchange Economies with Indivisible Commodities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(6), pages 997-1008, November.
    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. K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), 2002. "Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    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. Mithun Chakraborty & Erel Segal-Halevi & Warut Suksompong, 2021. "Weighted Fairness Notions for Indivisible Items Revisited," Papers 2112.04166, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    2. Warut Suksompong & Nicholas Teh, 2023. "Weighted Fair Division with Matroid-Rank Valuations: Monotonicity and Strategyproofness," Papers 2303.14454, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    3. Warut Suksompong & Nicholas Teh, 2022. "On Maximum Weighted Nash Welfare for Binary Valuations," Papers 2204.03803, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    4. Suksompong, Warut & Teh, Nicholas, 2023. "Weighted fair division with matroid-rank valuations: Monotonicity and strategyproofness," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 48-59.
    5. Miralles, Antonio & Pycia, Marek, 2021. "Foundations of pseudomarkets: Walrasian equilibria for discrete resources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    6. Moshe Babaioff & Uriel Feige, 2024. "Share-Based Fairness for Arbitrary Entitlements," Papers 2405.14575, arXiv.org.

    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. Ortega, Josué, 2020. "Multi-unit assignment under dichotomous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 15-24.
    2. Thomson, William, 2011. "Chapter Twenty-One - Fair Allocation Rules," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 21, pages 393-506, Elsevier.
    3. Federico Echenique & Sumit Goel & SangMok Lee, 2022. "Stable allocations in discrete exchange economies," Papers 2202.04706, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    4. Johannes Brustle & Jack Dippel & Vishnu V. Narayan & Mashbat Suzuki & Adrian Vetta, 2019. "One Dollar Each Eliminates Envy," Papers 1912.02797, arXiv.org.
    5. Nicolò, Antonio & Velez, Rodrigo A., 2017. "Divide and compromise," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 100-110.
    6. 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.
    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. Goko, Hiromichi & Igarashi, Ayumi & Kawase, Yasushi & Makino, Kazuhisa & Sumita, Hanna & Tamura, Akihisa & Yokoi, Yu & Yokoo, Makoto, 2024. "A fair and truthful mechanism with limited subsidy," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 49-70.
    9. Svensson, Lars-Gunnar, 2004. "Strategy-Proof and Fair Wages," Working Papers 2004:8, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    10. Meertens, Marc & Potters, Jos & Reijnierse, Hans, 2002. "Envy-free and Pareto efficient allocations in economies with indivisible goods and money," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 223-233, December.
    11. Rodrigo A. Velez, 2017. "Equitable rent division," Working Papers 20170818-001, Texas A&M University, Department of Economics.
    12. Azrieli, Yaron & Shmaya, Eran, 2014. "Rental harmony with roommates," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 128-137.
    13. Tierney, Ryan, 2019. "The problem of multiple commons: A market design approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-27.
    14. Kranich, Laurence, 2015. "Equal shadow wealth: A new concept of fairness in exchange economies," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 110-117.
    15. Shell, Karl & Wright, Randall, 1993. "Indivisibilities, Lotteries, and Sunspot Equilibria," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 3(1), pages 1-17, January.
    16. Maniquet, François, 2008. "Social orderings for the assignment of indivisible objects," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 199-215, November.
    17. Kyle Greenberg & Parag A. Pathak & Tayfun Sönmez, 2020. "Mechanism Design meets Priority Design: Redesigning the US Army’s Branching Process Through Market Design," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 1035, Boston College Department of Economics.
    18. Kyle Greenberg & Parag A. Pathak & Tayfun Sonmez, 2021. "Mechanism Design meets Priority Design: Redesigning the US Army's Branching Process," Papers 2106.06582, arXiv.org.
    19. Fujinaka, Yuji & Sakai, Toyotaka, 2007. "Maskin monotonicity in economies with indivisible goods and money," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 253-258, February.
    20. Velez, Rodrigo A., 2016. "Fairness and externalities," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(1), January.

    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:inm:ormoor:v:46:y:2021:i:1:p:382-403. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.