IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reecde/v14y2010i1p1-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementation of solutions to the problem of fair division when preferences are single-peaked

Author

Listed:
  • William Thomson

    ()

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • William Thomson, 2010. "Implementation of solutions to the problem of fair division when preferences are single-peaked," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:reecde:v:14:y:2010:i:1:p:1-15
    DOI: 10.1007/s10058-009-0092-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10058-009-0092-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Doghmi, Ahmed & Ziad, Abderrahmane, 2008. "Nash implementation in exchange economies with single-peaked preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 157-160, July.
    2. Bochet, Olivier & Sakai, Toyotaka, 2010. "Secure implementation in allotment economies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 35-49, January.
    3. Ching, Stephen, 1992. "A simple characterization of the uniform rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 57-60, September.
    4. Barbera, Salvador & Jackson, Matthew O. & Neme, Alejandro, 1997. "Strategy-Proof Allotment Rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-21, January.
    5. Bettina Klaus & Hans Peters & Ton Storcken, 1997. "Reallocation of an infinitely divisible good," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 10(2), pages 305-333.
    6. Doghmi, Ahmed & Ziad, Abderrahmane, 2008. "Reexamination of Maskin's Theorem on Nash implementability," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 150-152, July.
    7. Saijo, Tatsuyoshi & Sjostrom, Tomas & Yamato, Takehiko, 2007. "Secure implementation," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 2(3), September.
    8. M. Fleurbaey & F. Maniquet, 1997. "Implementability and Horizontal Equity Imply No-Envy," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(5), pages 1215-1220, September.
    9. Hurwicz, Leonid, 1979. "On allocations attainable through Nash equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 140-165, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Masso, Jordi & Neme, Alejandro, 2001. "Maximal Domain of Preferences in the Division Problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 367-387, November.
    12. Geanakoplos, J. & Nalebuff, B., 1988. "On A Fundamental Conflict Between Equity And Efficiency," Papers 137, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
    13. Eric Maskin, 1999. "Nash Equilibrium and Welfare Optimality," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 23-38.
    14. Sonmez, Tayfun, 1994. "Consistency, monotonicity, and the uniform rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 229-235, November.
    15. Gensemer, Susan & Hong, Lu & Kelly, Jerry S., 1996. "Division Rules and Migration Equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 104-116, April.
    16. William Thomson, 1996. "Concepts Of Implementation," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 133-143, June.
    17. Anirban Kar & Özgür Kıbrıs, 2008. "Allocating multiple estates among agents with single-peaked preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(4), pages 641-666, December.
    18. Danilov, Vladimir, 1992. "Implementation via Nash Equilibria," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(1), pages 43-56, January.
    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. Doğan, Battal, 2016. "Nash-implementation of the no-envy solution on symmetric domains of economies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 165-171.
    2. Lombardi, Michele & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2011. "Partially-honest Nash implementation: Characterization results," CCES Discussion Paper Series 43, Center for Research on Contemporary Economic Systems, Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University.
    3. Ashlagi, Itai & Karagözoğlu, Emin & Klaus, Bettina, 2012. "A non-cooperative support for equal division in estate division problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 228-233.
    4. Ahmed Doghmi & Abderrahmane ZIAD, 2012. "On Partial Honesty Nash Implementation," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes 1 & University of Caen) 201201, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes 1, University of Caen and CNRS.
    5. Shuhei Morimoto & Shigehiro Serizawa & Stephen Ching, 2013. "A characterization of the uniform rule with several commodities and agents," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 871-911, March.
    6. Velez, Rodrigo A. & Thomson, William, 2012. "Let them cheat!," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 948-963.
    7. Rebelo, S., 1997. "On the Determinant of Economic Growth," RCER Working Papers 443, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    8. Yamamura, Hirofumi, 2016. "Coalitional stability in the location problem with single-dipped preferences: An application of the minimax theorem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 48-57.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Single-peaked preferences; Uniform rule; Nash implementability; Maskin monotonicity; No veto power; Strong monotonicity; C72; D63; D71; D7;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • 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
    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making

    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:reecde:v:14:y:2010:i:1:p:1-15. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.