Coalitional Manipulation on Communication Network
In an abstract model of division problems, we study division rules that are not manipulable through a reallocation of individual characteristic vectors within a coalition (e.g. reallocation of claims in bankruptcy problems). A coalition can be formed if members of the coalition are connected on a communication network, or a graph. We offer a characterization of non-manipulable division rules without any assumption on the structure of communication network. As corollaries, we obtain a number of earlier characterization results established with the assumption of complete network (complete graph) in various specialized settings. Moreover, our characterization, as we show, can be quite different from the earlier results depending on the network structure: for example, when the network is a tree, much larger family of rules are shown to be non-manipulable. The abstract model we consider can have various special examples such as bankruptcy problems, surplus sharing problems, cost sharing problems, social choice with transferable utility, etc
|Date of creation:||11 Aug 2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Phone: 1 212 998 3820|
Fax: 1 212 995 4487
Web page: http://www.econometricsociety.org/pastmeetings.asp
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- O'Neill, Barry, 1982. "A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 345-371, June.
- Moulin, Herve & Shenker, Scott, 1992. "Serial Cost Sharing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(5), pages 1009-37, September.
- Chun, Youngsub, 1988. "The proportional solution for rights problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 231-246, June.
- M. Angeles de Frutos, 1999. "Coalitional manipulations in a bankruptcy problem," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 4(3), pages 255-272.
- Moulin Herve, 1984.
"Egalitarianisme and utilitarianism in quasi-linear bargaining,"
CEPREMAP Working Papers (Couverture Orange)
- Moulin, Herve, 1985. "Egalitarianism and Utilitarianism in Quasi-linear Bargaining," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(1), pages 49-67, January.
- Ju, Biung-Ghi & Miyagawa, Eiichi & Sakai, Toyotaka, 2007. "Non-manipulable division rules in claim problems and generalizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 1-26, January.
- Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
- Biung-Ghi Ju & Eiichi Miyagawa & Toyotaka Sakai, 2003. "Non-Manipulable Division Rules in Claim Problems and Generalizations," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 200307, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2005.
- Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2007. "Bankruptcy Rules And Coalitional Manipulation," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(01), pages 105-118.
- Mark A. Satterthwaite & Hugo Sonnenschein, 1981. "Strategy-Proof Allocation Mechanisms at Differentiable Points," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(4), pages 587-597.
- Chambers, Christopher P. & Thomson, William, 2002. "Group order preservation and the proportional rule for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 235-252, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecm:feam04:563. 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: (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.