Manipulation games in economies with indivisible goods
- First Online:
- 234 Downloads
In this paper we study the strategic aspects of the No-Envy solution for the problem of allocating a finite set of indivisible goods among a group of agents when monetary compensations are possible. In the first part of the paper we consider the case where each agent receives, at most, one indivisible good. We prove that the set of equilibrium allocations of any direct revelation game associated with a subsolution of the No-Envy solution coincides with the set of envy-free allocations for the true preferences. Under manipulation all the subsolutions of the No-Envy solution are equivalent. In the second part of the paper, we allow each agent to receive more than one indivisible good. In this situation the above characterization does not hold any more. We prove that any Equal Income Walrasian allocation for the true preferences can be supported as an equilibrium allocation of any direct revelation game associated with subsolutions of the No-Envy solution, but also non-efficient allocations can be supported.
KeywordsIndivisible goods Envy-freeness Direct revelation games
JEL ClassificationC72 D63 D71
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Beviá C (1998) Fair allocation in a general model with indivisible goods. Rev Econ Des 3: 195–213Google Scholar
- Foley D (1967) Resource allocation and the public sector. Yale Econ Essays 7: 45–98Google Scholar
- Hurwicz L (1972) On informationally decentralized systems. In: McGuire CB, Radner R (eds) Decision and organization. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 297–336Google Scholar
- Hurwicz L (1979) On the interactions between information and incentives in organizations. In: Krippendorf K (eds) communication and control in society. Scientific Publishers, New York, pp 123–147Google Scholar
- Thomson W (1979) The equilibrium allocations of Walras and Lindahl manipulation games. University of Minnesota, Center for Economic Research, Discussion paper No. 790-111 (1995)Google Scholar
- Thomson W (1987) The vulnerability to manipulate behavior of economic mechanisms design to select equitable and efficient outcomes. In: Groves T, Radner R, Reiter S (eds) Information, incentives and economic mechanisms. University of Minnesota Press, pp 375–396Google Scholar
- Thomson W (2007) Fair allocation rules. Rochester Center for economic research working paper no. 539Google Scholar