Individual versus group strategy proofedness: 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 signicant domains where interesting rules satisfying individual strategy-proofness can be defifined, 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 these domains. Our results extend to intermediate versions of strategy-proofness, defined to exclude manipulations by small group of agents. They also provide guidelines on how to restrict the ranges of functions defined on domains that only satisfy our condition partially. Finally, we provide a partial answer regarding the necessity of our conditions.
|Date of creation:||Feb 2009|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ramon Trias Fargas, 25-27, 08005 Barcelona|
Phone: +34 93 542-1222
Fax: +34 93 542-1223
Web page: http://www.barcelonagse.eu
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.:
- 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.
- 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.
- Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
- Shigehiro Serizawa, 2005. "Pairwise Strategy-Proofness and Self-Enforcing Manipulation," ISER Discussion Paper 0629, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
- 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).
- Salvador Barbera & Matthew O. Jackson, 1993.
1021, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- 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.
- 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.
- Szilvia Papai, 2000. "Strategyproof Assignment by Hierarchical Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(6), pages 1403-1434, November.
- Alejandro Saporiti, 2008.
"Strategy-Proofness and Single-Crossing,"
Wallis Working Papers
WP55, University of Rochester - Wallis Institute of Political Economy.
- Salvador Barbera & Hugo Sonnenschein & Lin Zhou, 1990.
"Voting by Committees,"
Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers
941, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Schummer, James & Vohra, Rakesh V., 2002.
"Strategy-proof Location on a Network,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 405-428, June.
- 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.
- Bezalel Peleg & Peter Sudhölter, 1998. "Single-Peakedness and Coalition-Proofness," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 290, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
- Jerry Green & Jean-Jacques Laffont, 1979. "On Coalition Incentive Compatibility," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 243-254.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- H. Moulin, 1980. "On strategy-proofness and single peakedness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 437-455, 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.
- Kim, Ki Hang & Roush, Fred W., 1980. "Special domains and nonmanipulability," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 85-92, September.
- Peleg, Bezalel, 1998. "Almost all equilibria in dominant strategies are coalition - proof," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 157-162, August.
- 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.
- Barbera, Salvador, 1979. "A Note on Group Strategy-Proof Decision Schemes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 637-640, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bge:wpaper:372. 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: (Bruno Guallar)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.