IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bgu/wpaper/1403.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Equal Treatment of Equals in Classical Quasilinear Exchange Economies

Author

Listed:
  • Mridu Prabal Goswami

    (BGU)

Abstract

This paper shows that there does not exist a social choice function that satisfies strategy-proofness, Pareto-efficiency and equal treatment of equals simultaneously, in classical exchange economies. This result establishes the incompatibility of fairness and efficiency in strategy-proof social choice functions as found in Cho and Thomson (2013), which reaches the same conclusion for exchange economies with linear preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Mridu Prabal Goswami, 2014. "Equal Treatment of Equals in Classical Quasilinear Exchange Economies," Working Papers 1403, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:bgu:wpaper:1403
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://in.bgu.ac.il/en/humsos/Econ/Workingpapers/1403.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2003. "Strategy-proofness versus efficiency in exchange economies: General domain properties and applications," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(1), pages 73-93, August.
    2. Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2002. "Inefficiency of Strategy-Proof Rules for Pure Exchange Economies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 219-241, October.
    3. Serizawa, Shigehiro & Weymark, John A., 2003. "Efficient strategy-proof exchange and minimum consumption guarantees," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 246-263, April.
    4. , Prabal & , & ,, 2014. "Strategy-proofness and Pareto-efficiency in quasi-linear exchange economies," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(2), May.
    5. Momi, Takeshi, 2013. "Note on social choice allocation in exchange economies with many agents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 1237-1254.
    6. Kazuhiko Hashimoto, 2008. "Strategy-proofness versus efficiency on the Cobb-Douglas domain of exchange economies," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(3), pages 457-473, October.
    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. Mridu Goswami, 2015. "Non fixed-price trading rules in single-crossing classical exchange economies," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(2), pages 389-422, February.
    2. Takeshi Momi, 2020. "Efficient and strategy-proof allocation mechanisms in many-agent economies," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(2), pages 325-367, August.
    3. Jin Li & Jingyi Xue, 2013. "Egalitarian division under Leontief Preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(3), pages 597-622, November.
    4. Takeshi Momi, 2023. "Locally efficient and strategy-proof allocation mechanisms in exchange economies," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(4), pages 791-824, December.
    5. Momi, Takeshi, 2013. "Note on social choice allocation in exchange economies with many agents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 1237-1254.
    6. , Prabal & , & ,, 2014. "Strategy-proofness and Pareto-efficiency in quasi-linear exchange economies," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(2), May.
    7. Ryan Tierney, 2016. "On the manipulability of efficient exchange rules," ISER Discussion Paper 0987, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.
    8. Özgür Kıbrıs & İpek Tapkı, 2014. "A mechanism design approach to allocating central government funds among regional development agencies," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(3), pages 163-189, September.
    9. Momi, Takeshi, 2017. "Efficient and strategy-proof allocation mechanisms in economies with many goods," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), September.
    10. Salvador Barberà, 2010. "Strategy-proof social choice," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 828.10, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    11. Mridu Prabal Goswami, 2013. "Non Fixed-Price Trading Rules In Single-Crossing Classical Exchange Economies," Working Papers 1311, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    12. Cho, Wonki Jo, 2014. "Impossibility results for parametrized notions of efficiency and strategy-proofness in exchange economies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 26-39.
    13. Ju, Biung-Ghi, 2005. "Strategy-proof risk sharing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 225-254, February.
    14. Mridu Goswami & Arunava Sen & Sonal Yadav, 2015. "A Hurwicz type result in a model with public good production," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 867-887, December.
    15. Takeshi Momi, 2013. "Note on social choice allocation in exchange economies with Cobb–Douglas preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 787-792, March.
    16. Erlanson, Albin & Szwagrzak, Karol, 2013. "Strategy-Proof Package Assignment," Working Papers 2013:43, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    17. Mostapha Diss & Ahmed Doghmi & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2015. "Strategy proofness and unanimity in private good economies with single-peaked preferences," Working Papers halshs-01226803, HAL.
    18. Cho, Wonki Jo & Thomson, William, 2023. "Strategy-proofness in private good economies with linear preferences: An impossibility result," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 1012-1017.
    19. Hidekazu Anno & Hiroo Sasaki, 2013. "Second-best efficiency of allocation rules: strategy-proofness and single-peaked preferences with multiple commodities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(3), pages 693-716, November.
    20. Andersson, Tommy & Ehlers, Lars & Svensson, Lars-Gunnar, 2014. "Least manipulable Envy-free rules in economies with indivisibilities," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 43-49.

    More about this item

    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:bgu:wpaper:1403. 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: Aamer Abu-Qarn (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edbguil.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.