Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 505–515 | Cite as

Strategy-proof, efficient, and nonbossy quota allocations

  • John William Hatfield
Original Paper


We consider the problem of designing a mechanism to allocate objects to agents when each agent has a quota that must be filled exactly. Agents are assumed to have responsive preferences over items. We show that the only strategy-proof, Pareto optimal, and nonbossy mechanisms are sequential dictatorships. We also show that the only strategy-proof, Pareto optimal, nonbossy, and neutral mechanisms are serial dictatorships. Since these negative results hold for responsive preferences, they hold for more general preferences as well.


Identical Preference Allocation Mechanism Favorite Object Feasible Allocation Allocation Vector 
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. Ehlers L, Klaus B (2003) Coalitional strategy-proof and resource monotonic solutions for multiple assignment problems. Soc Choice Welfare 21: 265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gibbard A (1973) Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41: 587–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Jackson MO (2003) Mechanism theory. In: Ulrich D (ed) Optimization and operations research, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. EOLSS Publishers, Oxford,
  4. Papai S (2001) Strategy-proof and nonbossy multiple assignments. J Public Econ Theory 3: 257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Satterthwaite MA (1975) Strategy proofness and arrow’s conditions: existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. J Econ Theory 10: 187–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Satterthwaite MA, Sonnenschein H (1981) Strategy-proof at differentiable points. Rev Econ Stud 48: 587–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Shapley L, Scarf H (1974) On cores and indivisibility. J Math Econ 1: 23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2005) House allocation with existing tenants: an equivalence. Games Econ Behav 52: 153–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2007) Course bidding at business schools. Int Econ Rev (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  10. Svensson L-G (2003) Strategy-proof allocation of indivisible goods. Soc Choice Welf 16: 557–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of BusinessStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations