IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bge/wpaper/1541.html

Strategy-Proofness in Domains of Lexicographic Preferences: A Characterization

Author

Listed:
  • Dolors Berga
  • Bernardo Moreno
  • Pietro Salmaso

Abstract

We assume that a finite set of alternatives can be described by an ordered set of characteristics and offer a general version of lexicographicity that incorporates the possibility that agents' preferences over characteristics are not separable (the desirability of a characteristic does not depend on other characteristics). We first characterize all strategy-proof rules as a family of sequential rules by committees, with the particularity that the committee used in the decision over each characteristic may depend on the decision about previous ones. Our characterization does not require imposing voter sovereignty and the rules may incorporate restrictions over the alternatives to be selected. Then, we obtain the subclass of anonymous rules that where the committees are quota committees. Finally, we demonstrate that the only anonymous and strategy-proof rules that select a Condorcet winner are the subclass of sequential rules by majority (quota) committees.

Suggested Citation

  • Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno & Pietro Salmaso, 2025. "Strategy-Proofness in Domains of Lexicographic Preferences: A Characterization," Working Papers 1541, Barcelona School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:bge:wpaper:1541
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://bw.bse.eu/wp-content/uploads/1541.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shin Sato, 2012. "On strategy-proof social choice under categorization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(3), pages 455-471, March.
    2. Michel Le Breton & Arunava Sen, 1999. "Separable Preferences, Strategyproofness, and Decomposability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 605-628, May.
    3. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Peterson, George L. & Clarke, Andrea & Brown, Thomas C., 2003. "Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology and ethics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 63-76, February.
    4. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2023. "The structure of strategy-proof rules," Papers 2304.12843, arXiv.org.
    5. Rajeev Kohli & Khaled Boughanmi & Vikram Kohli, 2019. "Randomized Algorithms for Lexicographic Inference," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 357-375, March.
    6. Barberà, Salvador & Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2010. "Individual versus group strategy-proofness: When do they coincide?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1648-1674, September.
    7. Michael Yee & Ely Dahan & John R. Hauser & James Orlin, 2007. "Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Inference," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 532-549, 07-08.
    8. Dombi, Jozsef & Imreh, Csanad & Vincze, Nandor, 2007. "Learning lexicographic orders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(2), pages 748-756, December.
    9. Barbera Salvador & Gul Faruk & Stacchetti Ennio, 1993. "Generalized Median Voter Schemes and Committees," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 262-289, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Donald E. Campbell & Jerry S. Kelly, 2003. "A strategy-proofness characterization of majority rule," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 22(3), pages 557-568, October.
    12. Rajeev Kohli & Kamel Jedidi, 2007. "Representation and Inference of Lexicographic Preference Models and Their Variants," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 380-399, 05-06.
    13. Barbera, Salvador & Sonnenschein, Hugo & Zhou, Lin, 1991. "Voting by Committees," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 595-609, May.
    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. Barberà, Salvador & Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2017. "Immunity to credible deviations from the truth," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 129-140.
    2. Ernesto Savaglio & Stefano Vannucci, 2014. "Strategy-proofness and single-peackedness in bounded distributive lattices," Papers 1406.5120, arXiv.org.
    3. Ernesto Savaglio & Stefano Vannucci, 2019. "Strategy-proof aggregation rules and single peakedness in bounded distributive lattices," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 295-327, February.
    4. Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2020. "Preference reversal and group strategy-proofness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    5. Barberà, Salvador & Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2010. "Individual versus group strategy-proofness: When do they coincide?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1648-1674, September.
    6. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2020. "Arrow on domain conditions: a fruitful road to travel," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 237-258, March.
    7. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2018. "On random social choice functions with the tops-only property," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 413-435.
    8. Jeffrey E. Harris & Mariana Gerstenblüth & Patricia Triunfo, 2018. "Smokers’ Rational Lexicographic Preferences for Cigarette Package Warnings: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Eye Tracking," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 0218, Department of Economics - dECON.
    9. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2023. "A taxonomy of non-dictatorial unidimensional domains," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 228-269.
    10. Barberà, Salvador & Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2012. "Two necessary conditions for strategy-proofness: On what domains are they also sufficient?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 490-509.
    11. Mishra, Debasis & Roy, Souvik, 2012. "Strategy-proof partitioning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 285-300.
    12. SPRUMONT, Yves, 2016. "Strategy-proof choice of acts: a preliminary study," Cahiers de recherche 2016-06, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
    13. Chatterji, Shurojit & Sen, Arunava & Zeng, Huaxia, 2016. "A characterization of single-peaked preferences via random social choice functions," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(2), May.
    14. Roy, Souvik & Sadhukhan, Soumyarup, 2023. "Committee formation under constraints through randomized voting rules on separable domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    15. Patrick Harless, 2015. "Reaching consensus: solidarity and strategic properties in binary social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 97-121, June.
    16. Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 2010. "Strategy-proofness and weighted voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 15-23, July.
    17. Chatterji, Shurojit & Sen, Arunava & Zeng, Huaxia, 2014. "Random dictatorship domains," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 212-236.
    18. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2019. "Random mechanism design on multidimensional domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 25-105.
    19. Reffgen, Alexander, 2015. "Strategy-proof social choice on multiple and multi-dimensional single-peaked domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 349-383.
    20. Vannucci, Stefano, 2016. "Weakly unimodal domains, anti-exchange properties, and coalitional strategy-proofness of aggregation rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 56-67.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:bge:wpaper:1541. 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: Bruno Guallar (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bargses.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.