IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hig/wpaper/147-ec-2016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Dividing Goods or Bads Under Additive Utilities

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Bogomolnaia

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Herve Moulin

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Fedor Sandomirskiy

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Elena Yanovskaya

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Abstract

The Competitive Equilibrium with Equal Incomes is an especially appealing ecient and envy-free division of private goods when utilities are additive: it maximizes the Nash product of utilities and is single-valued and continuous in the marginal rates of substitution. The CEEI to divide bads captures similarly the critical points of the Nash product in the ecient frontier. But it is far from resolute, allowing routinely many divisions with sharply di erent welfare consequences. Even the much more permissive No Envy property is profoundly ambiguous in the division of bads: the set of ecient and envy-free allocations can have many connected components, and has no single-valued selection continuous in the marginal rates. The CEEI to divide goods is Resource Monotonic (RM): everyone (weakly) bene ts when the manna increases. But when we divide bads eciently, RM is incompatible with Fair Share Guarantee, a much weaker property than No Envy.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Bogomolnaia & Herve Moulin & Fedor Sandomirskiy & Elena Yanovskaya, 2016. "Dividing Goods or Bads Under Additive Utilities," HSE Working papers WP BRP 147/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:147/ec/2016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.hse.ru/data/2016/08/19/1118748210/147EC2016.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric Budish & Estelle Cantillon, 2012. "The Multi-unit Assignment Problem: Theory and Evidence from Course Allocation at Harvard," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2237-2271, August.
    2. van den Nouweland, A. & Peleg, B. & Tijs, S., 1996. "Axiomatic characterizations of the Walras correspondence for generalized economies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 355-372.
    3. Segal-Halevi, Erel & Sziklai, Balázs R., 2018. "Resource-monotonicity and population-monotonicity in connected cake-cutting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 19-30.
    4. Hurwicz, Leonid, 1979. "On allocations attainable through Nash equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 140-165, August.
    5. Moulin, Herve, 1990. "Uniform externalities : Two axioms for fair allocation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 305-326, December.
    6. Eric Budish, 2011. "The Combinatorial Assignment Problem: Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(6), pages 1061-1103.
    7. Shafer, Wayne & Sonnenschein, Hugo, 1993. "Market demand and excess demand functions," Handbook of Mathematical Economics, in: K. J. Arrow & M.D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Economics, edition 4, volume 2, chapter 14, pages 671-693, Elsevier.
    8. Varian, Hal R., 1974. "Equity, envy, and efficiency," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 63-91, September.
    9. Ioannis Caragiannis & David Kurokawa & Herve Moulin & Ariel D. Procaccia & Nisarg Shah & Junxing Wang, 2016. "The Unreasonable Fairness of Maximum Nash Welfare," Working Papers 2016_08, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    10. John Winsor Pratt & Richard Jay Zeckhauser, 1990. "The Fair and Efficient Division of the Winsor Family Silver," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(11), pages 1293-1301, November.
    11. Moulin, Herve & Thomson, William, 1988. "Can everyone benefit from growth? : Two difficulties," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 339-345, September.
    12. GEVERS, Louis, 1986. "Walrasian social choice: some simple axiomatic approaches," LIDAM Reprints CORE 708, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    13. Balazs Sziklai & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2015. "Resource-monotonicity and Population-monotonicity in Cake-cutting," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1552, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    14. Nagahisa, Ryo-ichi, 1991. "A local independence condition for characterization of Walrasian allocations rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 106-123, June.
    15. Elisha A. Pazner & David Schmeidler, 1978. "Egalitarian Equivalent Allocations: A New Concept of Economic Equity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 92(4), pages 671-687.
    16. Jain, Kamal & Vazirani, Vijay V., 2010. "Eisenberg-Gale markets: Algorithms and game-theoretic properties," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 84-106, September.
    17. Moulin, Herve, 1991. "Welfare bounds in the fair division problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 321-337, August.
    18. Thomson, William, 1988. "A study of choice correspondences in economies with a variable number of agents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 237-254, December.
    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. Erel Segal-Halevi, 2019. "Fair Division with Bounded Sharing," Papers 1912.00459, arXiv.org.
    2. Vittorio Bilò & Ioannis Caragiannis & Michele Flammini & Ayumi Igarashi & Gianpiero Monaco & Dominik Peters & Cosimo Vinci & William Zwicker, 2021. "Almost Envy-Free Allocations with Connected Bundles," Post-Print hal-03834506, HAL.
    3. Pavel Konyukhovskiy & Victoria Holodkova & Aleksander Titov, 2019. "Modeling Competition between Countries in the Development of Arctic Resources," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Anna Bogomolnaia & Hervé Moulin & Fedor Sandomirskiy & Elena Yanovskaya, 2017. "Competitive Division of a Mixed Manna," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85(6), pages 1847-1871, November.
    5. Yves Sprumont, 2020. "Nash welfarism and the distributive implications of informational constraints," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 8(1), pages 49-64, April.
    6. Misha Gavrilovich & Victoria Kreps, 2016. "Games with Incomplete Information on One Side as Games with Incomplete Information on Both Sides and Asymmetric Computational Resources," HSE Working papers WP BRP 154/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    7. Anna Bogomolnaia & Herve Moulin & Fedor Sandomirskiy & Elena Yanovskaya, 2016. "Dividing Goods and Bads Under Additive Utilities," HSE Working papers WP BRP 153/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    8. Vittorio Bil`o & Ioannis Caragiannis & Michele Flammini & Ayumi Igarashi & Gianpiero Monaco & Dominik Peters & Cosimo Vinci & William S. Zwicker, 2018. "Almost Envy-Free Allocations with Connected Bundles," Papers 1808.09406, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    9. Fedor Sandomirskiy & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2019. "Efficient Fair Division with Minimal Sharing," Papers 1908.01669, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.

    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. Anna Bogomolnaia & Hervé Moulin & Fedor Sandomirskiy & Elena Yanovskaya, 2017. "Competitive Division of a Mixed Manna," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85(6), pages 1847-1871, November.
    2. Anna Bogomolnaia & Hervé Moulin & Fedor Sandomirskiy & Elena Yanovskaia, 2019. "Dividing bads under additive utilities," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(3), pages 395-417, March.
    3. Thomson, William, 2011. "Chapter Twenty-One - Fair Allocation Rules," 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 2, chapter 21, pages 393-506, Elsevier.
    4. Rebelo, S., 1997. "On the Determinant of Economic Growth," RCER Working Papers 443, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    5. Ortega, Josué, 2020. "Multi-unit assignment under dichotomous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 15-24.
    6. Fleurbaey, Marc & Maniquet, Francois, 1996. "Fair allocation with unequal production skills: The No Envy approach to compensation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 71-93, August.
    7. Biung†Ghi Ju & Juan D. Moreno†Ternero, 2017. "Fair Allocation Of Disputed Properties," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1279-1301, November.
    8. Serrano, Roberto & Volij, Oscar, 1998. "Axiomatizations of neoclassical concepts for economies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 87-108, August.
    9. Maniquet, Francois, 1998. "An equal right solution to the compensation-responsibility dilemma," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 185-202, March.
    10. Sakai, Toyotaka, 2007. "Fairness and implementability in allocation of indivisible objects with monetary compensations," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 549-563, June.
    11. Erel Segal-Halevi & Balázs R. Sziklai, 2019. "Monotonicity and competitive equilibrium in cake-cutting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(2), pages 363-401, September.
    12. Corchon, Luis C. & Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Inigo, 2001. "A Proposal to Unify Some Concepts in the Theory of Fairness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 540-571, December.
    13. Fleurbaey, Marc, 2007. "Two criteria for social decisions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 421-447, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Hadi Hosseini & Zhiyi Huang & Ayumi Igarashi & Nisarg Shah, 2022. "Class Fairness in Online Matching," Papers 2203.03751, arXiv.org.
    16. Alon, Shiri & Lehrer, Ehud, 2019. "Competitive equilibrium as a bargaining solution: An axiomatic approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 60-71.
    17. Moshe Babaioff & Noam Nisan & Inbal Talgam-Cohen, 2021. "Competitive Equilibrium with Indivisible Goods and Generic Budgets," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 382-403, February.
    18. Christopher P. Chambers & Takashi Hayashi, 2017. "Resource allocation with partial responsibilities for initial endowments," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 13(4), pages 355-368, December.
    19. Marc Fleurbaey, 2005. "The Pazner-Schmeidler social ordering: A defense," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 9(2), pages 145-166, April.
    20. Kojima, Fuhito, 2013. "Efficient resource allocation under multi-unit demand," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-14.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    fair division of goods; fair division of bads; competitive equilibrium with equal incomes; Nash product; envy-freeness; resource monotonicity; independence of lost bids.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    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:hig:wpaper:147/ec/2016. 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: Shamil Abdulaev or Shamil Abdulaev (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.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.