IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/18053.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fair cake-cutting in practice

Author

Listed:
  • Kyropoulou, Maria
  • Ortega, Josué
  • Segal-Halevi, Erel

Abstract

Using a lab experiment, we investigate the real-life performance of envy-free and proportional cake-cutting procedures with respect to fairness and preference manipulation. We nd that envy-free procedures, in particular Selfridge-Conway, are fairer and also are perceived as fairer than their proportional counterparts, despite the fact that agents very often manipulate them. Our results support the practical use of the celebrated Selfridge-Conway procedure, and more generally, of envy- free cake-cutting mechanisms. We also nd that subjects learn their opponents' preferences after repeated interaction and use this knowledge to improve their allocated share of the cake. Learning reduces truth-telling behavior, but also reduces envy.

Suggested Citation

  • Kyropoulou, Maria & Ortega, Josué & Segal-Halevi, Erel, 2018. "Fair cake-cutting in practice," ZEW Discussion Papers 18-053, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:18053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/190568/1/1043594671.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hortala-Vallve, Rafael & Llorente-Saguer, Aniol, 2010. "A simple mechanism for resolving conflict," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 375-391, November.
    2. Tansa George Massoud, 2000. "Fair Division, Adjusted Winner Procedure (AW), and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(3), pages 333-358, June.
    3. Terry E. Daniel & James E. Parco, 2005. "Fair, Efficient and Envy-Free Bargaining: An Experimental Test of the Brams-Taylor Adjusted Winner Mechanism," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 241-264, May.
    4. Avinatan Hassidim & Déborah Marciano & Assaf Romm & Ran I. Shorrer, 2017. "The Mechanism Is Truthful, Why Aren't You?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 220-224, May.
    5. James E. Parco & Amnon Rapoport, 2004. "Enhancing Honesty in Bargaining Under Incomplete Information: An Experimental Study of the Bonus Procedure," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 539-562, November.
    6. Castillo, Marco & Dianat, Ahrash, 2016. "Truncation strategies in two-sided matching markets: Theory and experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 180-196.
    7. Avinatan Hassidim & Assaf Romm & Ran I. Shorrer, 2016. ""Strategic" Behavior in a Strategy-Proof Environment," Working Paper 413411, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    8. Dorothea Herreiner & Clemens Puppe, 2009. "Envy Freeness in Experimental Fair Division Problems," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 65-100, July.
    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. Ortega, Josué & Segal-Halevi, Erel, 2019. "Obvious manipulations in cake-cutting," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-056, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Bhardwaj, Bhavook & Kumar, Rajnish & Ortega, Josué, 2020. "Fairness and efficiency in cake-cutting with single-peaked preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    3. Josue Ortega & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2019. "Obvious Manipulations in Cake-Cutting," Papers 1908.02988, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2019.

    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. Maria Kyropoulou & Josu'e Ortega & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2018. "Fair Cake-Cutting in Practice," Papers 1810.08243, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2020.
    2. Pablo Guillen & Róbert F. Veszteg, 2019. "Strategy-proofness in experimental matching markets," Working Papers 1913, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    3. Chen, Li & Sebastián Pereyra, Juan, 2019. "Self-selection in school choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 59-81.
    4. Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Kübler, Dorothea, 2019. "Experiments On Matching Markets: A Survey," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 153, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    5. Avinatan Hassidim & Assaf Romm & Ran I. Shorrer, 2021. "The Limits of Incentives in Economic Matching Procedures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 951-963, February.
    6. Rustamdjan Hakimov & Dorothea Kübler, 2021. "Experiments on centralized school choice and college admissions: a survey," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 434-488, June.
    7. André Schmelzer, 2018. "Strategy-Proofness of Stochastic Assignment Mechanisms," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 3(1), pages 17-50, December.
    8. Ariel Rosenfeld & Avinatan Hassidim, 2020. "Too smart for their own good: Trading truthfulness for efficiency in the Israeli medical internship market," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 727-740, September.
    9. Rafael Hortala-Vallve & Aniol Llorente-Saguer & Rosemarie Nagel, 2013. "The role of information in different bargaining protocols," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(1), pages 88-113, March.
    10. Ashlagi, Itai & Gonczarowski, Yannai A., 2018. "Stable matching mechanisms are not obviously strategy-proof," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 405-425.
    11. Klijn, Flip & Pais, Joana & Vorsatz, Marc, 2019. "Static versus dynamic deferred acceptance in school choice: Theory and experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 147-163.
    12. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    13. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    14. Radzvilas, Mantas, 2016. "Hypothetical Bargaining and the Equilibrium Selection Problem in Non-Cooperative Games," MPRA Paper 70248, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Gabrielle Fack & Julien Grenet & Yinghua He, 2019. "Beyond Truth-Telling: Preference Estimation with Centralized School Choice and College Admissions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(4), pages 1486-1529, April.
    16. Surender Baswana & Partha Pratim Chakrabarti & Sharat Chandran & Yashodhan Kanoria & Utkarsh Patange, 2019. "Centralized Admissions for Engineering Colleges in India," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 49(5), pages 338-354, September.
    17. Breitmoser, Yves & Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian, 2019. "Obviousness around the clock," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2019-203, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    18. Alex Rees-Jones & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2018. "Taxing Humans: Pitfalls of the Mechanism Design Approach and Potential Resolutions," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 107-133.
    19. Casella, Alessandra & Turban, Sébastien, 2014. "Democracy undone. Systematic minority advantage in competitive vote markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 47-70.
    20. Deck, Cary & Sheremeta, Roman M., 2019. "The tug-of-war in the laboratory," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cake-cutting; Selfridge-Conway; cut-and-choose; envy; perceived fairness; preference manipulation; experimentation and learning;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    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:zbw:zewdip:18053. 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/zemande.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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.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.