IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/igtrxx/v19y2017i02ns0219198917500062.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experimental Gaming Comparison of Resource Allocation Rules in Case of Transferable Utilities

Author

Listed:
  • N. A. Korgin

    (V. A. Trapeznikov Institute of Control Sciences, 117997, 65 Profsoyuznaya Street, Moscow, Russia†Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, 123182 Moscow, Russia)

  • V. O. Korepanov

    (V. A. Trapeznikov Institute of Control Sciences, 117997, 65 Profsoyuznaya Street, Moscow, Russia)

Abstract

The present paper discusses the comparative analysis results of resource allocation rules using experiments in the form of business games. The comparative analysis involves five rules. The resource allocation mechanism that gives the efficient solution of the problem without transferable utility, implementing it as dominant strategy equilibrium in the agents game, so called Uniform rule. The mechanism with balanced payments introduced earlier by authors using the Groves Ledyard rule that gives the efficient solution of the problem as a Nash equilibrium in the agents game, as well as its modification reducing the dimension of the action space of the agents. The mechanism from the class of proportional allocation mechanisms, where, the efficient resource allocation also represents a Nash equilibrium, but the payments are unbalanced. Last mechanism in the comparative analysis was originally developed as a distributed optimization algorithm.

Suggested Citation

  • N. A. Korgin & V. O. Korepanov, 2017. "Experimental Gaming Comparison of Resource Allocation Rules in Case of Transferable Utilities," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(02), pages 1-11, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:igtrxx:v:19:y:2017:i:02:n:s0219198917500062
    DOI: 10.1142/S0219198917500062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219198917500062
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S0219198917500062?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. Groves, Theodore & Ledyard, John O, 1977. "Optimal Allocation of Public Goods: A Solution to the "Free Rider" Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 783-809, May.
    2. Chen, Yan, 2008. "Incentive-compatible Mechanisms for Pure Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 67, pages 625-643, Elsevier.
    3. Sprumont, Yves, 1991. "The Division Problem with Single-Peaked Preferences: A Characterization of the Uniform Allocation Rule," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 509-519, March.
    4. Rajiv T. Maheswaran & Tamer Başar, 2003. "Nash Equilibrium and Decentralized Negotiation in Auctioning Divisible Resources," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 361-395, September.
    5. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    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. Takehito Masuda & Yoshitaka Okano & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2013. "The Minimum Approval Mechanism Implements the Efficient Public Good Allocation Theoretically and Experimentally," ISER Discussion Paper 0874r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka, revised Sep 2013.
    2. Roi Zultan & Eva-Maria Steiger, 2011. "See No Evil: Information Chains and Reciprocity in Teams," Working Papers 1108, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    3. Xiaochuan Huang & Takehito Masuda & Yoshitaka Okano & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2014. "Cooperation among behaviorally heterogeneous players in social dilemma with stay or leave decisions," Working Papers SDES-2014-7, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Feb 2015.
    4. repec:dpr:wpaper:08874r is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Cason, Timothy N. & Zubrickas, Robertas, 2017. "Enhancing fundraising with refund bonuses," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 218-233.
    6. Masuda, Takehito & Okano, Yoshitaka & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi, 2014. "The minimum approval mechanism implements the efficient public good allocation theoretically and experimentally," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 73-85.
    7. Pablo Guillen & Danielle Merrett & Robert Slonim, 2015. "A New Solution for the Moral Hazard Problem in Team Production," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1514-1530, July.
    8. Julian Rauchdobler & Rupert Sausgruber & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2010. "Voting on Thresholds for Public Goods: Experimental Evidence," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 66(1), pages 34-64, March.
    9. Reischmann, Andreas, 2015. "The Conditional Contribution Mechanism for the Provision of Public Goods," Working Papers 0586, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    10. Anya Savikhin Samek & Roman Sheremeta, 2014. "Recognizing contributors: an experiment on public goods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 673-690, December.
    11. Carvajal, Andrés & Song, Xinxi, 2022. "A simple(r) Lindahl solution to the provision of public goods with warm-glow: Efficiency and implementation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    12. Li, Zhi & Liu, Pengfei & Swallow, Stephen K., 2017. "Supporting Private Provision of Ecosystem Services through Contracts: Evidence from Lab and Field Experiments," 2018 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 5-7, 2018, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 266300, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Gangadharan, Lata & Nikiforakis, Nikos & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2015. "Equality Concerns and the Limits of Self-Governance in Heterogeneous Populations," IZA Discussion Papers 9384, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Damian S. Damianov & Ronald Peeters, 2018. "Prize‐Based Mechanisms For Fund‐Raising: Theory And Experiments," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(3), pages 1562-1584, July.
    15. Daniele Nosenzo & Martin Sefton, 2012. "Promoting Cooperation: the Distribution of Reward and Punishment Power," Discussion Papers 2012-08, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    16. Koffi Serge William Yao & Emmanuelle Lavaine & Marc Willinger, 2021. "Effectiveness of the approval mechanism for CPR dilemmas: unanimity versus majority rule," CEE-M Working Papers hal-03234786, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    17. Gangadharan, Lata & Nikiforakis, Nikos & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2017. "Normative conflict and the limits of self-governance in heterogeneous populations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 143-156.
    18. Roberto Serrano, 2003. "The Theory of Implementation of Social Choice Rules," Working Papers 2003-19, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    19. Robbett, Andrea, 2019. "Just ask? Preference revelation and lying in a public goods experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 118-135.
    20. Bierbrauer, Felix & Ockenfels, Axel & Pollak, Andreas & Rückert, Désirée, 2017. "Robust mechanism design and social preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 59-80.
    21. Anya Samek & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2016. "When Identifying Contributors is Costly: An Experiment on Public Goods," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(3), pages 801-808, 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:wsi:igtrxx:v:19:y:2017:i:02:n:s0219198917500062. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/igtr/igtr.shtml .

    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.