IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jogath/v52y2023i4d10.1007_s00182-023-00849-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Irresolute mechanism design: a new path to possibility

Author

Listed:
  • Ville Korpela

    (University of Turku)

Abstract

Often preferences in a group of agents are such that any sensible goal must admit a tie between all alternatives. The standard formulation in mechanism design demands that in this case all alternatives must be equilibrium outcomes of the decision making mechanism. However, as far as the idea of an equilibrium is to predict the outcome, we could equally well require that there are no equilibria at all. Although this may seem innocent, it allows the mechanism designer to implement goals that are impossible to enforce with any other implementation concept, like mixed Nash implementation, subgame perfect implementation, or Nash implementation using undominated strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Ville Korpela, 2023. "Irresolute mechanism design: a new path to possibility," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(4), pages 993-1007, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jogath:v:52:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s00182-023-00849-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s00182-023-00849-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00182-023-00849-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00182-023-00849-0?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kelly, Jerry S, 1977. "Strategy-Proofness and Social Choice Functions without Singlevaluedness," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(2), pages 439-446, March.
    2. Martin Dufwenberg & Mark Stegeman, 2002. "Existence and Uniqueness of Maximal Reductions Under Iterated Strict Dominance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 2007-2023, September.
    3. Eric Maskin, 1999. "Nash Equilibrium and Welfare Optimality," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(1), pages 23-38.
    4. Mezzetti, Claudio & Renou, Ludovic, 2012. "Implementation in mixed Nash equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(6), pages 2357-2375.
    5. Saari,Donald G., 2001. "Decisions and Elections," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521808163, Enero.
    6. Bernheim, B Douglas, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1007-1028, July.
    7. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1991. "Comments on the Interpretation of Game Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(4), pages 909-924, July.
    8. Palfrey, Thomas R & Srivastava, Sanjay, 1991. "Nash Implementation Using Undominated Strategies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 479-501, March.
    9. H. Moulin, 1980. "On strategy-proofness and single peakedness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 437-455, January.
    10. Young, H. P., 1988. "Condorcet's Theory of Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(4), pages 1231-1244, December.
    11. Matthew O. Jackson, 2001. "A crash course in implementation theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(4), pages 655-708.
    12. William Thomson, 1996. "Concepts Of Implementation," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 133-143, June.
    13. Vartiainen, Hannu, 2007. "Subgame perfect implementation: A full characterization," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 111-126, March.
    14. Artemov, Georgy, 2015. "Time and Nash implementation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 229-236.
    15. Moore, John & Repullo, Rafael, 1988. "Subgame Perfect Implementation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1191-1220, September.
    16. Lin Zhou & Stephen Ching, 2002. "Multi-valued strategy-proof social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(3), pages 569-580.
    17. Jean Blin & Mark Satterthwaite, 1976. "Strategy-proofness and single-peakedness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 51-58, June.
    18. Gibbard, Allan, 1977. "Manipulation of Schemes That Mix Voting with Chance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(3), pages 665-681, April.
    19. Muller, Eitan & Satterthwaite, Mark A., 1977. "The equivalence of strong positive association and strategy-proofness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 412-418, April.
    20. 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.
    21. Dutta, Bhaskar & Pattanaik, Prasanta K, 1978. "On Nicely Consistent Voting Systems," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 163-170, January.
    22. Shin Sato, 2008. "On strategy-proof social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 331-343, August.
    23. Saari,Donald G., 2001. "Decisions and Elections," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521004046, Enero.
    24. Pearce, David G, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1029-1050, July.
    25. Moore, John & Repullo, Rafael, 1990. "Nash Implementation: A Full Characterization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(5), pages 1083-1099, September.
    26. Dutta, Bhaskar, 1984. "Effectivity Functions and Acceptable Game Forms," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1151-1166, September.
    27. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Maskin, Eric & Sjostrom, Tomas, 2002. "Implementation theory," 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 5, pages 237-288 Elsevier.
    2. Roberto Serrano, 2003. "The Theory of Implementation of Social Choice Rules," Working Papers 2003-19, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    3. Korpela Ville, 2016. "Social Choice Theory: A Neglected Path to Possibility," Discussion Papers 110, Aboa Centre for Economics.
    4. Matthew O. Jackson, 2001. "A crash course in implementation theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(4), pages 655-708.
    5. Felix Brandt, 2015. "Set-monotonicity implies Kelly-strategyproofness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 793-804, December.
    6. Bochet, Olivier & Sakai, Toyotaka, 2007. "Strategic manipulations of multi-valued solutions in economies with indivisibilities," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 53-68, January.
    7. Korpela, Ville & Lombardi, Michele & Vartiainen, Hannu, 2020. "Do coalitions matter in designing institutions?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    8. Coggins, Jay S., 1993. "Rationalizing the International Coffee Agreement Virtually," Staff Papers 200569, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    9. Corchón, Luis C., 2008. "The theory of implementation : what did we learn?," UC3M Working papers. Economics we081207, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    10. Yi, Jianxin, 2011. "Implementation via mechanisms with transfers," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 65-70, January.
    11. Michele Lombardi & Naoki Yoshihara, 2020. "Partially-honest Nash implementation: a full characterization," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 871-904, October.
    12. Aziz, Haris & Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Brill, Markus, 2018. "On the tradeoff between efficiency and strategyproofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 1-18.
    13. Antonio Quesada, 2002. "From social choice functions to dictatorial social welfare functions," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(16), pages 1-7.
    14. Laslier, Jean-François & Núñez, Matías & Remzi Sanver, M., 2021. "A solution to the two-person implementation problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    15. Jain, Ritesh, 2021. "Rationalizable implementation of social choice correspondences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 47-66.
    16. Mihir Bhattacharya & Ojasvi Khare, 2024. "Strategy-proof interval-social choice correspondences over extended single-peaked domains," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 53(3), pages 893-911, September.
    17. Brandt, Felix & Saile, Christian & Stricker, Christian, 2022. "Strategyproof social choice when preferences and outcomes may contain ties," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    18. Klaus Nehring & Massimiliano Marcellino, 2003. "Monotonicity Implies Strategy-Proofness For Correspondences," Working Papers 193, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    19. Diss, Mostapha & Doghmi, Ahmed & Tlidi, Abdelmonaim, 2016. "Strategy proofness and unanimity in many-to-one matching markets," MPRA Paper 75927, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Dec 2016.
    20. R Jain & V Korpela & M Lombardi, 2022. "Two-Player Rationalizable Implementation," Working Papers 202228, University of Liverpool, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Condorcet rule; Collective decision making; Implementation; Impossibility results; Nash equilibrium; Social choice theory;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    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:spr:jogath:v:52:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s00182-023-00849-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.