IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Collective Choice under Dichotomous Preferences

  • Bogomolnaia, Anna

    (Rice U)

  • Moulin, Herve
  • Stong, Richard

Agents partition deterministic outcomes into good or bad. A direct revelation mechanism selects a lottery over outcomes - also interpreted as time-shares. Under such dichotomous preferences, the probability that the lottery outcome be a good one is a canonical utility representation. The utilitarian mechanism averages over all deterministic outcomes "approved" by the largest number of agents. It is efficient, strategy-proof and treats equally agents and outcomes. We reach the impossibility frontier if we also place the lower bound 1/n on each agent's utility, where n is the number of agents; or if this lower bound is the fraction of good outcomes to feasible outcomes. We conjecture that no ex-ante efficient and strategy-proof mechanism guarantees a strictly positive utility to all agents at all profiles, and prove a weaker version of this conjecture.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Rice University, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 2003-09.

in new window

Date of creation: Aug 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ecl:riceco:2003-09
Contact details of provider: Postal: MS-22, 6100 South Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892
Phone: (713) 527-4875
Fax: (713) 285-5278
Web page:

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.:

as in new window
  1. Gibbard, Allan, 1978. "Straightforwardness of Game Forms with Lotteries as Outcomes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(3), pages 595-614, May.
  2. Freixas, Xavier, 1984. "A cardinal approach to straightforward probabilistic mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 227-251, December.
  3. Shasikanta Nandeibam, 1998. "An alternative proof of Gibbard's random dictatorship result," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 509-519.
  4. Moulin, Herve & Bogomolnaia, Anna, 2001. "Random Matching under Dichotomous Preferences," Working Papers 2001-03, Rice University, Department of Economics.
  5. Barbera, S & Bogomolnaia, A & van der Stel, H, 1996. "Strategy-Proof Probabilistic Rules for Expected Utility Maximizers," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 330.96, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
  6. Barbera, Salvador, 1979. "Majority and Positional Voting in a Probabilistic Framework," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 379-89, April.
  7. Dutta, Bhaskar & Peters, Hans & Sen, Arunava, 2002. "Strategy-Proof Probabilistic Mechanisms in Economies with Pure Public Goods," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 392-416, October.
  8. Fishburn, Peter C., 1978. "Axioms for approval voting: Direct proof," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 180-185, October.
  9. Gibbard, Allan, 1977. "Manipulation of Schemes That Mix Voting with Chance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(3), pages 665-81, April.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:riceco:2003-09. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.