Individual versus group strategy-proofness: when do they coincide?
A social choice function is group strategy-proof on a domain if no group of agents can manipulate its final outcome to their own benefit by declaring false preferences on that domain. Group strategy-proofness is a very attractive requirement of incentive compatibility. But in many cases it is hard or impossible to find nontrivial social choice functions satisfying even the weakest condition of individual strategy-proofness. However, there are a number of economically significant domains where interesting rules satisfying individual strategy-proofness can be defined, and for some of them, all these rules turn out to also satisfy the stronger requirement of group strategy-proofness. This is the case, for example, when preferences are single-peaked or single-dipped. In other cases, this equivalence does not hold. We provide sufficient conditions defining domains of preferences guaranteeing that individual and group strategy-proofness are equivalent for all rules defined on the
|Date of creation:||04 Feb 2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona|
Phone: 34 93 592 1203
Fax: +34 93 542-1223
Web page: http://pareto.uab.cat
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Shigehiro Serizawa, 2006.
"Pairwise Strategy-Proofness and Self-Enforcing Manipulation,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(2), pages 305-331, April.
- Shigehiro Serizawa, 2005. "Pairwise Strategy-Proofness and Self-Enforcing Manipulation," ISER Discussion Paper 0629, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
- Alejandro Saporiti, 2008.
"Strategy-Proofness and Single-Crossing,"
Wallis Working Papers
WP55, University of Rochester - Wallis Institute of Political Economy.
- Peter Sudhölter & Bezalel Peleg, 1999.
"Single-peakedness and coalition-proofness,"
Review of Economic Design,
Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 4(4), pages 381-387.
- Partha Dasgupta & Peter Hammond & Eric Maskin, 1979. "The Implementation of Social Choice Rules: Some General Results on Incentive Compatibility," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 185-216.
- Salvador Barbera & Matthew O. Jackson, 1993.
1021, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Le Breton, Michel & Weymark, John A., 1999. "Strategy-proof social choice with continuous separable preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 47-85, August.
- Szilvia Papai, 2000. "Strategyproof Assignment by Hierarchical Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(6), pages 1403-1434, November.
- Kim, Ki Hang & Roush, Fred W., 1980. "Special domains and nonmanipulability," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 85-92, September.
- Kim C. Border & J. S. Jordan, 1983. "Straightforward Elections, Unanimity and Phantom Voters," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 153-170.
- Salvador Barbera & Hugo Sonnenschein & Lin Zhou, 1990.
"Voting by Committees,"
Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers
941, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- James Schummer & Rakesh V. Vohra, 1999.
"Strategy-proof Location on a Network,"
1253, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Barbera, S. & Sonnenschein, H., 1988.
"Voting By Quota And Committee,"
UFAE and IAE Working Papers
95-88, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
- H. Moulin, 1980. "On strategy-proofness and single peakedness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 437-455, January.
- Sen, Amartya & Pattanaik, Prasanta K., 1969. "Necessary and sufficient conditions for rational choice under majority decision," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 178-202, August.
- Peleg, Bezalel, 1998. "Almost all equilibria in dominant strategies are coalition - proof," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 157-162, August.
- Klaus, Bettina, 2001. "Coalitional Strategy-Proofness in Economies with Single-Dipped Preferences and the Assignment of an Indivisible Object," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 64-82, January.
- 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.
- Michel Breton & Vera Zaporozhets, 2009.
"On the equivalence of coalitional and individual strategy-proofness properties,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(2), pages 287-309, August.
- Le Breton, Michel & Zaporozhets, Vera, 2006. "On the Equivalence of Coalitional and Individual Strategy-Proofness Properties," IDEI Working Papers 408, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
- Jerry Green & Jean-Jacques Laffont, 1979. "On Coalition Incentive Compatibility," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 243-254.
- Barbera, Salvador, 1979. "A Note on Group Strategy-Proof Decision Schemes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 637-40, May.
- Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aub:autbar:761.09. 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: (Xavier Vila)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.