Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 1–18 | Cite as

Manipulation via Endowments in Exchange Markets with Indivisible Goods

  • Murat Atlamaz
  • Bettina KlausEmail author


We consider exchange markets with heterogeneous indivisible goods. We are interested in exchange rules that are efficient and immune to manipulations via endowments (either with respect to hiding or destroying part of the endowment or transferring part of the endowment to another trader). We consider three manipulability axioms: hiding-proofness, destruction-proofness, and transfer-proofness. We prove that no rule satisfying efficiency and hiding-proofness (which together imply individual rationality) exists. For two agents with separable and responsive preferences, we show that efficient, individually rational, and destruction-proof rules exist. However, for some profiles of separable preferences, no rule is efficient, individually rational, and destruction-proof. In the case of transfer-proofness the compatibility with efficiency and individual rationality for the two-agent case extends to the unrestricted domain. If there are more than two agents, for some profiles of separable preferences, no rule is efficient, individually rational, and transfer-proof.


Individual Rationality Exchange Market Rational Allocation Dictatorship Rule Free Disposal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barberà S, Sonnenschein H, Zhou L (1991) Voting by committees. Econometrica 59:595–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ehlers L, Klaus B (2003) Coalitional strategy-proof and resource-monotonic solutions for multiple assignment problems. Soc Choice Welfare 21:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fiestras-Janeiro G, Klijn F, Sánchez E (2004) Manipulation of optimal matchings via predonation of endowment. Math Soc Sci 47:295–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Klaus B, Miyagawa E (2002) Strategy-proofness, solidarity, and consistency for multiple assignment problems. Int J Game Theory 30:421–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Klaus B, Peters H, Storcken T (1997) Reallocation of an infinitely divisible good. Econ Theory 10:305–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ma J (1994) Strategy-proofness and the strict core in a market with indivisibilities. Int J Game Theory 23:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Pápai S (2003) Strategy-proof exchange of indivisible goods. J Math Econ 38:931–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pápai S (2004) Exchange in a general market with indivisible goods. J Econ Theory (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  9. Postlewaite A (1979) Manipulation via endowments. Rev Econ Stud 46:255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Roth A (1982) Incentive compatibility in a market with indivisibilities. Econ Lett 9:127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Roth A (1985) The college admissions problem is not equivalent to the marriage problem. J Econ Theory 36:277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sertel MR, Özkal-Sanver I (2002) Manipulability of the men- (women-) optimal matching rule via endowments. Math Soc Sci 44:65–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shapley L, Scarf H (1974) On cores and indivisibility. J Math Econ 1:23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sönmez T (1999) Strategy-proofness and essentially single-valued cores. Econometrica 67:677–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Thomson W (1987) Monotonic allocation mechanisms. University of Rochester, MimeoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations