Dynamic Stability of Nash-Efficient Public Goods Mechanisms: Reconciling Theory and Experiments

  • Yan Chen
Conference paper

Abstract

We propose to use supermodularity as a robust dynamic stability criterion for public goods mechanisms with a unique Nash equilibrium. Among existing public goods mechanisms whose Nash equilibria are Pareto efficient, the Groves-Ledyard mechanism is a supermodular game if and only if the punishment parameter is sufficiently high, while none of the Hurwicz, Walker and Kim mechanisms is supermodular in a quasilinear environment. The Falkinger mechanism is a supermodular game in a quadratic environment if and only if the subsidy coefficient is greater than or equal to one. These results are consistent with the findings in seven experimental studies.

Keywords

public goods mechanisms supermodular games experiments 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arifovic, J. and Ledyard, J. (2003). “Computer Testbeds and Mechanism Design: Application to the Class of Groves-Ledyard Mechanisms for Provision of Public Goods.” Manuscript, Caltech.Google Scholar
  2. Boylan, R. and El-Gamal, M. (1993). “Fictitious Play: A Statistical Study of Multiple Economic Experiments.” Games Econ. Behavior 5, 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cabrales, A. (1999). “Adaptive Dynamics and the Implementation Problem with Complete Information.” Journal of Economic Theory 86, 159–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Camerer, C. and Ho, T. (1999). “Experienced-Weighted Attraction Learning in Normal Form Games,” Econometrica, Vol. 67, No. 4. (Jul., 1999), pp. 827–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, Y. (forthcoming). “Incentive-Compatible Mechanisms for Pure Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research,” in The Handbook of Experimental Economics Results (C. Plott and V. Smith, Eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, Y. and Gazzale, R. (forthcoming). “When Does Learning in Games Generate Convergence to Nash Equilibria? The Role of Supermodularity in an Experimental Setting.” American Economic Review.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, Y. and Plott, C. (1996). “The Groves-Ledyard Mechanism: An Experimental Study of Institutional Design.” Journal of Public Economics 59, 335–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, Y. and Tang, F. (1998). “Learning and Incentive-Compatible Mechanisms for Public Goods Provision: An Experimental Study.” Journal of Political Economy 106, 633–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dibvig, P. and Spatt, C. (1983). “Adoption Externalities as Public Goods.” Journal of Public Economics 20, 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. El-Gamal, M. and Grether, D. (1995). “Uncovering Behavioral Strategies: Are People Bayesians?” Journal of the American Statistical Associations 90, 1137–1145.Google Scholar
  11. Falkinger, J. (1996). “Efficient Private Provision of Public Goods by Rewarding Deviations from Average.” Journal of Public Economics 62, 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falkinger, J., Fehr, E., Gächter, S. and Winter-Ebmer, R. (2000). “A Simple Mechanism for the Efficient Provision of Public Goods — Experimental Evidence.” American Economic Review 90, 247–264.Google Scholar
  13. Gary-Bobo, R. and Jaaidane, T. (2000). “Polling Mechanisms and the Demand Revelation Problem.” Journal of Public Economics 76, 203–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Green, J. and Laffont, J.-J. (1977). “Characterization of Satisfactory Mechanisms for the Revelation of the Preferences for Public Goods.” Econometrica 45, 427–438.Google Scholar
  15. Groves, T. and Ledyard, J. (1977). “Optimal Allocation of Public Goods: A Solution to the ‘Free Rider’ Problem.” Econometrica 45, 783–809.Google Scholar
  16. Harstad, R. and Marrese, M. (1981). “Implementation of Mechanism by Processes: Public Good Allocation Experiments.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2, 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harstad, R. and Marrese, M. (1982). “Behavioral Explanations of Efficient Public Good Allocations.” Journal of Public Economics 19, 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hurwicz, L. (1972). “On Informationally Decentralized Systems,” in Decision and Organization (C. McGuire and R. Radner, Eds.), pp. 297–336. Amsterdam: North Holland Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hurwicz, L. (1979). “Outcome Functions Yielding Walrasian and Lindahl Allocations at Nash Equilibrium Points.” Review of Economic Studies 46, 217–225.Google Scholar
  20. Kim, T. (1986). “On the Nonexistence of a Stable Nash Mechanism implementing Lindahl Allocations.” Manuscript: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  21. Kim, T. (1993). “A Stable Nash Mechanism Implementing Lindahl Allocations for Quasi-linear Environments.” Journal of Mathematical Economics 22, 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1990). “Rationalizability, Learning and Equilibrium in Games with Strategic Complementarities.” Econometrica 58, 1255–1277.Google Scholar
  23. Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1991). “Adaptive and Sophisticated Learning in Normal Form Games.” Games Econ. Behavior 3, 82–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Milleron, Jean-Claude (1972). “Theory of Value with Public Goods: A Survey Article.” Journal of Economic Theory 5, 419–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mori, T. (1989). “Effectiveness of Mechanisms for Public Goods Provision: An Experimental Study.” Economic Studies 40, 234–246.Google Scholar
  26. Muench, T. and Walker, M. (1983). “Are Groves-Ledyard Equilibria Attainable?” Review of Economic Studies L, 393–396.Google Scholar
  27. Moulin, H. (1984). “Dominance Solvability and Cournot Stability.” Mathematical Social Sciences 7, 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peleg, B. (1996). “Double Implementation of the Lindahl Equilibrium by a Continuous Mechanism.” Economic Design 2, 311–324.Google Scholar
  29. Roberts, J. (1979). “Incentives and Planning Procedures for the Provision of Public Goods.” Review of Economic Studies 46, 283–292.Google Scholar
  30. Roth, A. and Erev, I. (1995). “Learning in Extensive Form Games: Experimental Data and Simple Dynamic Models in the Intermediate Term.” Games and Economic Behavior 8: 164–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith, V. (1979). “Incentive Compatible Experimental Processes For the Provision of Public Goods,” in Research in Experimental Economics 1 (V. Smith, Eds.), pp. 59–168. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  32. Tian, G. (1989). “Implementation of the Lindahl Correspondence by a Single-Valued, Feasible, and Continuous Mechanism.” Review of Economic Studies 56, 613–621.Google Scholar
  33. Topkis, D. (1978). “Minimizing a Submodular Function on a Lattice.” Operations Research 26, 305–321.Google Scholar
  34. Topkis, D. (1979). “Equilibrium Points in Nonzero-Sum n-Person Submodular Games.” SIAM Journal of Control and Optimization 17, 773–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. de Trenqualye, P. (1988). “Stability of the Groves-Ledyard Mechanism.” Journal of Economic Theory 46, 164–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. de Trenqualye, P. (1989). “Stable Implementation of Lindahl Allocations.” Economic Letters 29, 291–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vega-Redondo, F. (1989). “Implementation of Lindahl Equilibrium: An Integration of Static and Dynamic Approaches.” Mathematical Social Sciences 18, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walker, M. (1980). “On the Impossibility of a Dominant Strategy Mechanism to Optimally Decide Public Questions.” Econometrica 48, 1521–1540.Google Scholar
  39. Walker, M. (1981). “A Simple Incentive Compatible Scheme for Attaining Lindahl Allocations.” Econometrica 49, 65–71.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yan Chen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MichiganUSA

Personalised recommendations