International Journal of Game Theory

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 931–946

Information elicitation and sequential mechanisms



We study an incomplete information mechanism design problem with three peculiarities. First, access to agents’ private information is costly and unobservable. Second, the mechanism may communicate sequentially with the agents. Third, the mechanism designer and all the agents share a common interest. As an example one can think of N geologists that study the potential oil reserves in some tract. The geologists agree on the right course of action, given their N studies. However, carrying out the study may be costly for a geologist and so he may opt to fabricate a study. The oil company that employs these geologists need not contract them simultaneously and may, furthermore, choose to provide some of the results of early studies to geologists employed later on. Finally, the geologists and the oil company would like the joint study to forecast the quantity of oil reserves as accurate as possible. It turns out that, in such settings, what may not be implementable without communication becomes implementable with communication. Clearly, the possibility for sequential communication introduces a lot of complexity to the design problem. However, we provide a result in the spirit of the revelation principle and argue that whenever implementation is possible with communication it is also possible with a simple communication mechanism. Formally, we extend the model and results in Smorodinsky and Tennenholtz (Games Econ Behav 55(2):385–406, 2006) who consider the similar problem but restrict attention to symmetric social choice functions and IID distributions over the private information.


Mechanism design Information elicitation Sequential mechanism Revelation principle 

JEL Classification

C72 D70 D82 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Battaglini M (2005) Sequential voting with abstention. Games Econ Behav 51(2): 445–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dekel E, Piccione M (1997) On the equivalence of simultaneous and sequential binary elections. Discussion Paper No. 1206, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management ScienceGoogle Scholar
  3. Gershkov A, Szentes B (2009) Optimal voting scheme with costly information acquisition. J Econ Theory 144(1): 36–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. McGrew R, Porter R, Shoham Y (2003) Towards a general theory of non-cooperative computation. In: Proceedings of the 9th conference of theoretical aspects of rationality and knowlede (TARK 2003), pp 59–71Google Scholar
  5. Myerson R (1982) Optimal coordination mechanisms in generalized principal-agent problems. J Math Econ 10: 67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Myerson R (1983) Mechanism design by an informed principal. Econometrica 51: 1767–1797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Myerson R (1986) Games with communication. Econometrica 54: 328–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Persico N (2004) Committee design with endogenous information. Rev Econ Stud 71: 165–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ronen A, Wahrmann L (2005) Prediction games. In: The 1st workshop on internet and network economics (WINE)Google Scholar
  10. Shoham Y, Tennenholtz M (2002) Non-Cooperative Computation: Boolean functions with correctness and exclusivity. J Theor Comput Sci 343: 97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Smorodinsky R, Tennenholtz M (2006) Overcoming free riding in multi-party computations—the anonymous case. Games Econ Behav 55(2): 385–406 (Mini Special Issue: Electronic Market Design)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics EducationColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Industrial Engineering and ManagementTechnionHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations