IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hai/wpaper/201203.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Implementing Efficient Graphs in Connection Networks

Author

Listed:
  • Ruben Juarez

    (Department of Economics, University of Hawaii at Manoa)

  • Rajnish Kumar

    (Department of Economics, Louisiana State University)

Abstract

We consider the problem of sharing the cost of a network that meets the connection demands of a set of agents. The agents simultaneously choose paths in the network connecting their demand nodes. A mechanism splits the total cost of the network formed among the participants. We introduce two new properties of implementation. The first property, Pareto Nash Implementation (PNI), requires that the ecient outcome always be implemented in a Nash equilibrium and that the efficient outcome Pareto dominates any other Nash equilibrium. The average cost mechanism (AC) and other asymmetric variations are the only rules that meet PNI. These mechanisms are also characterized under Strong Nash Implementation. The second property, Weakly Pareto Nash Implementation (WPNI), requires that the least inefficient equilibrium Pareto dominates any other equilibrium. The egalitarian mechanism (EG), a variation of AC that meets individual rationality, and other asymmetric mechanisms are the only rules that meet WPNI and Individual Rationality. PNI and WPNI provide the first economic justification of the Price of Stability (PoS), a seemingly natural measure in the computer science literature but one not easily embraced in economics. EG minimizes the PoS across all individually rational mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruben Juarez & Rajnish Kumar, 2012. "Implementing Efficient Graphs in Connection Networks," Working Papers 201203, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hai:wpaper:201203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.economics.hawaii.edu/research/workingpapers/WP_12-3.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2012
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaminski, Marek M., 2006. "Parametric rationing methods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 115-133, January.
    2. Oscar Volij & Nir Dagan, 1997. "Bilateral Comparisons and Consistent Fair Division Rules in the Context of Bankruptcy Problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 26(1), pages 11-25.
    3. Kaminski, Marek M., 2000. "'Hydraulic' rationing," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 131-155, September.
    4. Sandholm, William H., 2001. "Potential Games with Continuous Player Sets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 81-108, March.
    5. Hervé Moulin & Scott Shenker, 2001. "Strategyproof sharing of submodular costs:budget balance versus efficiency," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 18(3), pages 511-533.
    6. Epstein, Amir & Feldman, Michal & Mansour, Yishay, 2009. "Strong equilibrium in cost sharing connection games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 51-68, September.
    7. Hervé Moulin, 2008. "The price of anarchy of serial, average and incremental cost sharing," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 36(3), pages 379-405, September.
    8. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Tvede, Mich, 2012. "Truth-telling and Nash equilibria in minimum cost spanning tree models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 222(3), pages 566-570.
    9. William Thomson, 2007. "On the existence of consistent rules to adjudicate conflicting claims: a constructive geometric approach," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 11(3), pages 225-251, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Saijo, Tatsuyoshi & Sjostrom, Tomas & Yamato, Takehiko, 2007. "Secure implementation," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 2(3), September.
    12. Young, H. P., 1988. "Distributive justice in taxation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 321-335, April.
    13. Stefano Lovo, 2009. "Preopening and equilibrium selection," Post-Print hal-00495940, HAL.
    14. Sprumont, Yves, 1991. "The Division Problem with Single-Peaked Preferences: A Characterization of the Uniform Allocation Rule," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 509-519, March.
    15. Juarez, Ruben, 2013. "Group strategyproof cost sharing: The role of indifferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 218-239.
    16. Hervé Moulin, 2000. "Priority Rules and Other Asymmetric Rationing Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 643-684, May.
    17. Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
    18. Levent Ülkü, 2013. "Optimal combinatorial mechanism design," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 53(2), pages 473-498, June.
    19. Chambers, Christopher P., 2006. "Asymmetric rules for claims problems without homogeneity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 241-260, February.
    20. HervÊ Moulin, 1999. "Incremental cost sharing: Characterization by coalition strategy-proofness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(2), pages 279-320.
    21. Kim, Youngse, 1996. "Equilibrium Selection inn-Person Coordination Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 203-227, August.
    22. Ruben Juarez, 2008. "The worst absolute surplus loss in the problem of commons: random priority versus average cost," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 34(1), pages 69-84, January.
    23. Andelman, Nir & Feldman, Michal & Mansour, Yishay, 2009. "Strong price of anarchy," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 289-317, March.
    24. Sharkey, W.W., 1991. "Network Models in Economics," Papers 69, Bell Communications - Economic Research Group.
    25. Monderer, Dov & Shapley, Lloyd S., 1996. "Fictitious Play Property for Games with Identical Interests," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 258-265, January.
    26. Monderer, Dov & Shapley, Lloyd S., 1996. "Potential Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 124-143, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sinan Ertemel & Rajnish Kumar, 2018. "Proportional rules for state contingent claims," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 229-246, March.
    2. María Gómez-Rúa & Juan Vidal-Puga, 2017. "A monotonic and merge-proof rule in minimum cost spanning tree situations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(3), pages 813-826, March.
    3. Ruben Juarez & Michael Wu, 2019. "Routing-Proofness in Congestion-Prone Networks," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Juarez, Ruben & Ko, Chiu Yu & Xue, Jingyi, 2018. "Sharing sequential values in a network," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 734-779.
    5. Jens Leth Hougaard & Mich Tvede, 2010. "Strategyproof Nash Equilibria in Minimum Cost Spanning Tree Models," MSAP Working Paper Series 01_2010, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    6. Ruben Juarez & Kohei Nitta, 2017. "Profit-Sharing and Implementation of Efficient Outcomes," Working Papers 201702, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    7. Han, Lining & Juarez, Ruben, 2018. "Free intermediation in resource transmission," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 75-84.
    8. Jens Leth Hougaard & Mich Tvede, 2020. "Implementation of Optimal Connection Networks," IFRO Working Paper 2020/06, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    9. Ruben Juarez & Jung S. You, 2019. "Optimality of the uniform rule under single-peaked preferences," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(1), pages 27-36, May.
    10. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Tvede, Mich, 2015. "Minimum cost connection networks: Truth-telling and implementation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 76-99.
    11. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Tvede, Mich, 2012. "Truth-telling and Nash equilibria in minimum cost spanning tree models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 222(3), pages 566-570.
    12. Bhardwaj, Bhavook & Kumar, Rajnish & Ortega, Josué, 2020. "Fairness and efficiency in cake-cutting with single-peaked preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    13. Ruben Juarez & Kohei Nitta & Miguel Vargas, 2020. "Profit-sharing and efficient time allocation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 817-846, October.
    14. Jung S. You & Ruben Juarez, 2021. "Incentive-compatible simple mechanisms," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(4), pages 1569-1589, June.
    15. Jens Leth Hougaard & Mich Tvede, 2020. "Trouble Comes in Threes: Core stability in Minimum Cost Connection Networks," IFRO Working Paper 2020/07, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    16. Juarez, Ruben & Nitta, Kohei & Vargas, Miguel, 2021. "Coalitional efficient profit-sharing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).

    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. Juarez, Ruben & Ko, Chiu Yu & Xue, Jingyi, 2018. "Sharing sequential values in a network," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 734-779.
    2. Flores-Szwagrzak, Karol, 2015. "Priority classes and weighted constrained equal awards rules for the claims problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 36-55.
    3. Thomson, William, 2015. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: An update," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-59.
    4. 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.
    5. Moulin, Herve, 2002. "Axiomatic cost and surplus sharing," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 289-357, Elsevier.
    6. Stovall, John E., 2014. "Collective rationality and monotone path division rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-24.
    7. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Giovanni Ponti, 2010. "On the adjudication of conflicting claims: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(1), pages 145-179, January.
    8. Thomson, William, 2013. "A characterization of a family of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 157-168.
    9. Christopher P. Chambers & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2017. "Taxation and poverty," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 153-175, January.
    10. William Thomson, 2015. "For claims problems, another compromise between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules," RCER Working Papers 592, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    11. Stovall, John E., 2014. "Asymmetric parametric division rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 87-110.
    12. Jens Hougaard & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Lars Østerdal, 2013. "Rationing with baselines: the composition extension operator," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 179-191, December.
    13. Hokari, Toru & Thomson, William, 2008. "On properties of division rules lifted by bilateral consistency," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1057-1071, December.
    14. Harless, Patrick, 2017. "Wary of the worst: Maximizing award guarantees when new claimants may arrive," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 316-328.
    15. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & M. Marco-Gil, 2014. "A new approach for bounding awards in bankruptcy problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(2), pages 447-469, August.
    16. Stovall, John E., 2020. "Equal sacrifice taxation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 55-75.
    17. Moulin, Herve & Stong, Richard, 2003. "Filling a multicolor urn: an axiomatic analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 242-269, October.
    18. Emin Karagözoğlu, 2014. "A noncooperative approach to bankruptcy problems with an endogenous estate," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 217(1), pages 299-318, June.
    19. William Thomson, 2007. "On the existence of consistent rules to adjudicate conflicting claims: a constructive geometric approach," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 11(3), pages 225-251, November.
    20. Jingyi Xue, 2018. "Fair division with uncertain needs," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 105-136, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost-sharing; Implementation; Average Cost; Egalitarian Mechanism;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation

    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:hai:wpaper:201203. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deuhius.html .

    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: Web Technician (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deuhius.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.