Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 5–30 | Cite as

Implementation in stochastic dominance Nash equilibria

Original Paper


We study solutions that choose lotteries for profiles of preferences defined over sure alternatives. We define Nash equilibria based on “stochastic dominance” comparisons and study the implementability of solutions in such equilibria. We show that a Maskin-style invariance condition is necessary and sufficient for implementability. Our results apply to an abstract Arrovian environment as well as a broad class of economic environments.


  1. Abreu D, Sen A (1991) Virtual Implementation in nash equilibrium. Econometrica 59:997–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Athanassoglou S, Sethuraman J (2011) House allocation with fractional endowments. Int J Game Theory 40:481–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoît J-P, Ok EA (2008) Nash implementation without no-veto power. Games Econ Behav 64:51–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bochet O (2007) Nash implementation with lottery mechanisms. Soc Choice Welf 28:111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Olivier B, Sakai T (2005) Nash implementation in stochastic social choice. Working paper, Yokohama National UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogomolnaia A, Moulin H (2001) A new solution to the random assignment problem. J Econ Theory 88:233–260Google Scholar
  7. Budish E (2011) The combinatorial assignment problem: approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. J Polit Econ 119(6):1061–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Budish E, Che Y-K, Kojima F, Milgrom P (2013) Designing random allocation mechanisms: theory and applications. Am Econ Rev 103(2):585–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dasgupta PS, Hammond PJ, Maskin ES (1979) The implementation of social choice rules: some general results on incentive compatibility. Rev Econ Stud 46:185–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. d’Aspremont C, Gérard-Varet L-A (1979) Incentives and incomplete information. J Publ Econ 11(1):25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehlers L, Masso J (2007) Incomplete information and singleton cores in matching markets. J Econ Theory 136(1):587–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Özgün E, Kesten O (2010) On the ordinal nash equilibria of the probabilistic serial mechanism. Working paper, Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  13. Foley D (1967) Resource allocation and the public sector. Yale Econ Essays 7:45–98Google Scholar
  14. Gibbard A (1977) Manipulation of schemes that mix voting with chance. Econometrica 45(3):665–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris M, Townsend RM (1981) Resource allocation under asymmetric information. Econometrica 49(1):33–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heo EJ (2014) Probabilistic assignment problem with multi-unit demands: a generalization of the serial rule and its characterization. J Math Econ 54:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hylland A, Zeckhauser R (1979) The efficient allocation of individuals to positions. J Polit Econ 87(2):293–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kasajima Y (2011) More on the probabilistic assignment of indivisible goods when agents receive several. Working paper, Hiroshima Shudo UniversityGoogle Scholar
  19. Kojima F (2009) Random assignment of multiple indivisible objects. Math Soc Sci 57:134–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Majumdar D, Sen A (2004) Ordinally bayesian incentive compatible voting rules. Econometrica 72:523–540 03CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maskin E (1999) Nash equilibrium and welfare optimality. Rev Econ Stud 66:23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matsushima H (1988) A new approach to the implementation problem. J Econ Theory 45:128–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Myerson RB (1979) Incentive compatibility and the bargaining problem. Econometrica 47(1):61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pais J (2008) Incentives in decentralized random matching markets. Games Econ Behav 64:632–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peivandi A (2014) Random allocation of bundles. Working paper, Northwestern UniversityGoogle Scholar
  26. Sen A (1995) The implementation of social choice functions via social choice correspondences: a general formulation and a limit result. Soc Choice Welf 12:277–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomson W (1999) Monotonic extensions on economic domains. Rev Econ Des 4:13–33Google Scholar
  28. Thomson W (2013) Strategy-proof allocation rules. Unpublished monograph, University of RochesterGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations