Skip to main content
Log in

Ex-post implementation and preference aggregation via potentials

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Economic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We introduce several notions of potentials for mechanism design problems with interdependent values, and relate them to implementation in ex-post equilibrium. Whereas ex-post implementation is closely linked to the ordinal concept of best-alternative potentials, the celebrated Vickrey–Clarke–Groves mechanism corresponds to the stronger notion of a cardinal potential: agents agree not only on the best alternative, but also on the quantitative differences between all alternatives. We characterize all valuations that allow for cardinal potentials, and use this characterization for: (1) Identifying valuations for which ex-post implementation is possible; (2) Identifying classes of valuations for which all ex-post implementable choice rules correspond to cardinal potentials. The latter allows us to extend to interdependent valuations a result for dominant strategy implementation in private values settings, due to Roberts (The Characterization of Implementable Choice Rules, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bergemann D. and Morris S. (2005). Robust mechanism design. Econometrica 73: 1771–1813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergemann D. and Välimäki J. (2002). Information acquisition and efficient mechanism design. Econometrica 70: 1007–10035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bikhchandani S., Chatterji S., Lavi R., Múalem A., Nisan N. and Sen A. (2006). Weak monotonicity characterizes deterministic dominant-strategy implementation. Econometrica 74: 1109–1132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, K-S., Ely, J.: Ex-post incentive compatible mechanism design. Discussion paper, Northwestern University (2003)

  • Clarke E. (1971). Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice 8: 19–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta P. and Maskin E. (2000). Efficient auctions. Quart J Econ 115: 341–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubey P., Haimanko O. and Zapechelnyuk A. (2006). Strategic complements and substitutes, and potential games. Games Econ Behav 54: 77–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Facchini G., Borm P., Tijs S. and Van Meegen F. (1997). Congestion models and weighted bayesian potential games. Theory Dec 42: 193–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves T. (1973). Incentives in teams. Econometrica 41: 617–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gui, H., Mueller, R., Vohra, R.: Dominant strategy mechanisms with multi-dimensional types. Discussion paper, Northwestern University (2004)

  • Jehiel P., Moldovanu B. and Stacchetti E. (1999). Multi-dimensional Mechanism Design for Auctions with Externalities. J Econ Theory 85: 814–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehiel P. and Moldovanu B. (2001). Efficient design with interdependent valuations. Econometrica 69: 1237–1259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehiel P., Meyer-ter-Vehn M., Moldovanu B. and Zame W. (2006). The limits of ex-post implementation. Econometrica 74: 585–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laffont, J.J., Maskin, E.: The Theory of incentives: an overview. In: Hildenbrand, W. (ed) Advances in Economic Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 31–94 (1982)

  • Lavi, R., Múalem, A., Nisan, N.: Two simplified proofs for Roberts’ theorem. Discussion paper, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2006)

  • Meyer-ter-Vehn, M., Moldovanu, B.: Ex-post implementation with interdependent valuations. Discussion paper, University of Bonn (2002)

  • Monderer D. and Shapley L. (1996). Potential games. Games Econ Behav 14: 124–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry M. and Reny P. (2002). An efficient auction. Econometrica 70: 1199–1213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts K. (1979). The characterization of implementable choice rules. In: Laffont, J.J. (eds) Aggregation and Revelation of Preferences., pp. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochet J.C. (1987). A condition for rationalizability in a quasi-linear context. J Math Econ 16: 191–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandholm W. (2005). Negative externalities and evolutionary implementation. Rev Econ Stud 72: 885–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slade M. (1994). What does an oligopoly maximize?. J Industr Econ 17: 45–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ui T. (2000). A shapley value representation of potential games. Games Econ Behav 31: 121–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickrey W. (1961). Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. J Financ 16: 8–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Jehiel.

Additional information

A previous version of this paper was titled “Potentials and Implementation”.

We wish to thank an associate editor, two anonymous referees, Paul Milgrom and Burkhard Schipper for helpful comments and stimulating remarks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jehiel, P., Meyer-ter-Vehn, M. & Moldovanu, B. Ex-post implementation and preference aggregation via potentials. Econ Theory 37, 469–490 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-007-0300-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-007-0300-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation