The Design of Everyday Markets

  • Nicole ImmorlicaEmail author
Part of the Studies in Economic Design book series (DESI)


Economic design is based on a deep and instrumental theory of optimal strategic behavior. This approach, while highly valuable in complex economic environments involving sophisticated agents with clear objectives, sometimes results in design that is unintuitive to humans. This article promotes the study of everyday markets which are easy for humans to navigate. Such an agenda requires new interdisciplinary interactions and metrics of success.



I would like to thank Nima Haghpanah, Jason Hartline, Jenn Wortman Vaughn, Glen Weyl and James Wright for many lovely conversations that inspired ideas in this piece. The main thesis of this work echoes that of Chen et al. (2016), which similarly emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and an extended set of tools and techniques for the field of social computing.


  1. Anderson, R., Ashlagi, I., Gamarnik, D., Rees, M., Roth, A., Snmez, T., et al. (2015). Kidney exchange and the alliance for paired donation: Operations research changes the way kidneys are transplanted. Interfaces, 45(1), 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babaioff, M., Mansour, Y., Nisan, N., Noti, G., Curino, C., Ganapathy, N. et al. (2017). Era: A framework for economic resource allocation for the cloud. In International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW (pp. 635–642).Google Scholar
  3. Balcan, M.-F., Blum, A., Hartline, J. D. & Mansour, Y. (2005). Mechanism design via machine learning. In IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (pp. 605–614).Google Scholar
  4. Bhawalkar, K., & Roughgarden, T. (2011). Welfare guarantees for combinatorial auctions with item bidding. In ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (pp. 700–709).Google Scholar
  5. Chen, Y., Ghosh, A., Kearns, M., Roughgarden, T., & Vaughan, J. W. (2016). Mathematical foundations for social computing. Communications of the ACM, 59(12), 102–108.Google Scholar
  6. Christodoulou, G., Kovács, A., & Schapira, M. (2008). Bayesian combinatorial auctions. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (pp. 820–832).Google Scholar
  7. de Keijzer, B., Markakis, E., Schäfer, G., & Telelis, O. (2013). Inefficiency of standard multi-unit auctions. In European Symposium on Algorithms (pp. 385–396).Google Scholar
  8. Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning, working paper.Google Scholar
  9. Elkind, E. (2007). Designing and learning optimal finite support auctions. In ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms (pp. 736–745).Google Scholar
  10. Feldman, M., Fu, H., Gravin, N., & Lucier, B. (2013). Simultaneous auctions are (almost) efficient. In ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (pp. 201–210).Google Scholar
  11. Feldman, M., Immorlica, N., Lucier, B., Roughgarden, T., & Syrgkanis, V. (2016). The price of anarchy in large games. ACM symposium on Theory of Computing (pp. 963–976). Providence: ACM.Google Scholar
  12. Goel, A., Krishnaswamy, A. K., Sakshuwong, S., & Aitamurto, T. (2016). Knapsack voting: Voting mechanisms for participatory budgeting, working paper.Google Scholar
  13. Goldman, J., & Procaccia, A. D. (2015). Spliddit: Unleashing fair division algorithms. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 13(2), 41–46.Google Scholar
  14. Hart, S., & Nisan, N. (2013). The menu-size complexity of auctions. In ACM Conference on Economics and Computation.Google Scholar
  15. Hartline, J., & Taggart, S. (2016). Non-revelation mechanism design, working paper.Google Scholar
  16. Hassidim, A., Kaplan, H., Mansour, Y., & Nisan, N. (2011). Non-price equilibria in markets of discrete goods. In ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (pp. 295–296).Google Scholar
  17. Hassidim, A., Marciano, D., Romm, A., & Shorrer, R. (2017). The mechanism is truthful, why aren’t you? American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings.Google Scholar
  18. Iyengar, S., Jiang, W., & Huberman, G. (2004). How much choice is too much: Determinants of individual contributions in 401k retirement plans. In O. Mitchell & S. Utkus (Eds.), Pension design and structure: new lessons from behavioral finance (pp. 83–97). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kagel, J. H., & Levin, D. (1993). Independent private value auctions: Bidder behaviour in first-, second-and third-price auctions with varying numbers of bidders. The Economic Journal, 103(419), 868–879.Google Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Leyton-Brown, K., Milgrom, P., & Segal, I. (2017). Economics and computer science of a radio spectrum reallocation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28).Google Scholar
  22. Li, S. (2017). Obviously strategy-proof mechanisms. American Economic Review.Google Scholar
  23. Lipton, Z. C. (2016). The mythos of model interpretability, working paper.Google Scholar
  24. Markakis, E., & Telelis, O. (2015). Uniform price auctions: Equilibria and efficiency. Theory of Computing Systems, 57(3), 549–575.Google Scholar
  25. Morgenstern, J. H., & Roughgarden, T. (2015). On the pseudo-dimension of nearly optimal auctions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 136–144).Google Scholar
  26. Newman, N., Frechette, A., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2017). Deep optimization for spectrum repacking. Communications of the ACM.Google Scholar
  27. Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New York: Basic Books (AZ).Google Scholar
  28. Ostrovsky, M., & Schwarz, M. Reserve prices in internet advertising auctions: A field experiment. Journal of Politcal Economy revise and resubmit.Google Scholar
  29. Procaccia, A. D., & Wang, J. (2014). Fair enough: Guaranteeing approximate maximin shares. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation (pp. 675–692). Providence: ACM.Google Scholar
  30. Quarfoot, D., von Kohorn, D., Slavin, K., Sutherland, R., Goldstein, D., & Konar, E. (2017). Quadratic voting in the wild: Real people, real votes. Public Choice, 172(1–2), 283–303.Google Scholar
  31. Roth, A., Snmez, T., & nver. U., (2004). Kidney exchange. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(2), 457–488.Google Scholar
  32. Rothschild, D. (2015). Combining forecasts for elections: Accurate, relevant, and timely. International Journal of Forecasting, 31(3), 952–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shorrer, R., & Sovago, S. (2017). Obvious mistakes in a strategically simple college-admissions environment, working paper.Google Scholar
  34. Weyl, E. G. (2012). Quadratic vote buying, working paper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Microsoft ResearchCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations