Skip to main content
Log in

Pairwise Strategy-Proofness and Self-Enforcing Manipulation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Social Choice and Welfare Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

“Strategy-proofness” is one of the axioms that are most frequently used in the recent literature on social choice theory. It requires that by misrepresenting his preferences, no agent can manipulate the outcome of the social choice rule in his favor. The stronger requirement of “group strategy-proofness” is also often employed to obtain clear characterization results of social choice rules. Group strategy-proofness requires that no group of agents can manipulate the outcome in their favors. In this paper, we advocate “effective pairwise strategy-proofness.” It is the requirement that the social choice rule should be immune to unilateral manipulation and “self-enforcing” pairwise manipulation in the sense that no agent of a pair has the incentive to betray his partner. We apply the axiom of effective pairwise strategy-proofness to three types of economies: public good economy, pure exchange economy, and allotment economy. Although effective pairwise strategy-proofness is seemingly a much weaker axiom than group strategy-proofness, effective pairwise strategy-proofness characterizes social choice rules that are analyzed by using different axioms in the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barberà S, Jackson M (1995) Strategy-proof exchange. Econometrica 63:51–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barberà S, Massó J, Serizawa S (1998) Strategy-proof voting on compact ranges. Game Econ Behav 25:272–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benassy JP (1982) The Economics of market disequilibrium. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ching S (1994) An alternative characterization of the uniform rule. Soc Choice Welfare 11:131–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ded R, Ohseto S (1999) Strategy-proof and individually rational social choice functions for public good economies: a note. Econ Theory 14:685–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard A (1977) Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 45:439–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurwicz L (1972) On Informationally Decentralized Systems. In: McGuire CB, Radner R (eds) Decision and organization. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 297–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskin E (1999) Nash equilibrium and welfare optimality. Rev Econ Stud 66:23–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulin H (1980) On strategy-proofness and single-peakedness. Publ Choice 35:437–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulin H (1994) Serial cost sharing of excludable public goods. Rev Econ Stud 61:305–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave (1985) A brief history of fiscal doctrine. In: Auerbach AJ, Feldstein M (eds) Handbook of public economics vol. I. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohseto S (1997) Strategy-proof mechanism in Public Good Economies. Math Soc Sci 33:157–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peleg B, Sudhölter P (1999) Single-peaked and coalition proofness. Rev Econ Design 4:381–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson P (1954) The pure theory of public expenditures. Rev Econ Stat 36:387–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satterthwaite M (1975) Strategy-proofness and arrow’s conditions: existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. J Econ Theory 10:187–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satterthwaite M, Sonnenschein H (1981) Strategy-proof allocation mechanisms at differentiable points. Rev Econ Stud 48:587–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer J (1997) Strategy-proofness versus efficiency on restricted domains of exchange economies. Soc Choice Welfare 14:47–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer J (2000) Manipulation through Bribes. J Econ Theory 91:180–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serizawa S (1996) Strategy-proof and individually rational social choice functions for public good economies. Econ Theory 7:501–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Serizawa S (1999) Strategy-proof and symmetric social choice functions for public good economies. Econometrica 76:121–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serizawa S (2002) Inefficiency of strategy-proof rules for pure exchange economies. J Econ Theory 106:219–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serizawa S, Weymark J (2003) Efficient strategy-proof exchange and minimum consumption guarantees. J Econ Theory 109:246–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprumont Y (1991) The division problem with single-peaked preferences: a characterization of the uniform rule. Econometrica 59:509–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou L (1991) Inefficiency of Strategy-proof allocation mechanisms in pure exchange economies. Soc Choice Welfare 8:247–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shigehiro Serizawa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Serizawa, S. Pairwise Strategy-Proofness and Self-Enforcing Manipulation. Soc Choice Welfare 26, 305–331 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-006-0099-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-006-0099-x

Keywords

Navigation