IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mal/wpaper/2018-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Majoritarian aggregation and Nash implementation of experts' opinions

Author

Listed:
  • Pablo Amorós

    () (Department of Economics, University of Málaga)

Abstract

A group of experts must choose the winner of a competition. The honest opinions of the experts must be aggregated to determine the deserving winner. The aggregation rule is majoritarian if it respects the honest opinion of the majority of experts. An expert might not want to reveal her honest opinion if, by doing so, a contestant that she likes more is chosen. Then, we have to design a mechanism that implements the aggregation rule. We show that, in general, no majoritarian aggregation rule is Nash implementable, even if no expert has friends or enemies among the contestants.

Suggested Citation

  • Pablo Amorós, 2018. "Majoritarian aggregation and Nash implementation of experts' opinions," Working Papers 2018-05, Universidad de Málaga, Department of Economic Theory, Málaga Economic Theory Research Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:mal:wpaper:2018-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://theeconomics.uma.es/malagawpseries/Papers/METCwp2018-5.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2018
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saijo, Tatsuyoshi, 1987. "On constant maskin monotonic social choice functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 382-386, August.
    2. Eric Maskin, 1999. "Nash Equilibrium and Welfare Optimality," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 23-38.
    3. Feddersen, Timothy & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 1998. "Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts under Strategic Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(1), pages 23-35, March.
    4. Austen-Smith, David & Banks, Jeffrey S., 1996. "Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(1), pages 34-45, March.
    5. Duggan, John & Martinelli, Cesar, 2001. "A Bayesian Model of Voting in Juries," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 259-294, November.
    6. McLennan, Andrew, 1998. "Consequences of the Condorcet Jury Theorem for Beneficial Information Aggregation by Rational Agents," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(2), pages 413-418, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    mechanism design; Nash equilibrium; aggregation of experts' opinions; jury;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation

    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:mal:wpaper:2018-5. 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: (Ascension Andina). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dtmales.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 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.

    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.