Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

Living Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem

  • Pierre Bernhard
  • Marc Deschamps
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_755-2

Definition

One seminal question in social choice theory was: is it possible to find a social choice function such that each agent is always better off when telling the truth concerning his preferences no matter what the others report? In other words, can we find a strategy-proof voting rule? With at least three alternatives and two voters, the answer is clearly no under a very general framework, as was proved independently by Allan Gibbard and Mark Satterthwaite. Since then, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem is at the core of social choice theory, game theory, and mechanism design.

Introduction

Since K. Arrow’s 1951 analysis, which marks the revival of the theory of social choice, economists investigate from an axiomatic point of view the aggregation of individual preferences in order to obtain a social welfare function (i.e., a complete and transitive ranking based on the individual preferences) or a social choice function (i.e., one alternative from the individual preferences). Such...

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

References

  1. Arrow KJ (1951) Social choice and individual values. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Barberà S (2010) Strategy-proof social choice. Barcelona economic working paper 420. University of Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartholdi J, Tovey C, Trick M (1989) The computational difficulty of manipulating an election. Soc Choice Welf 6:227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black D (1948) On the rationale of group decision making. J Polit Econ 56:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black D (1958) The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. Börger T (2015) An introduction to the theory of mechanism design. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duggan J, Schwartz T (2000) Strategic manipulability without resoluteness or shared beliefs: Gibbard-Satterthwaite generalized. Soc Choice Welfare 17:86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dummett M, Farquharson R (1961) Stability in voting. Econometrica 29:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farquharson R (1969) Theory of voting. Yale university Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  10. Feldman AM (1979) Manipulating voting procedures. Econ Inq 17:452–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibbard A (1973) Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41:587–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibbard A (1977) Manipulation of schemes that mix voting with chance. Econometrica 45:665–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moulin H (1988) Axioms of cooperative decision making, Economic Society monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Satterthwaite M (1975) Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s conditions: existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. J Econ Theory 10:187–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schmeidler D, Sonnenschein H (1978) Two proofs of the gibbard-satterthwaite theorem on the possibility of a strategy-proof social choice function. In: Gottinger HW, Leinfellner W (eds) Decision theory and social ethics, Issues in Social Choic. Reidel Publishing Company, pp 227–234. Published version of a 1974 working paper. Dordrecht:Holland/Boston: USA London: EnglandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sprumont Y (1995) Strategy-proof collective choice in economic and political environments. Can J Econ 28:68–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vickrey W (1960) Utility, strategy and social decision rules. Q J Econ 74:507–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biocore teamUniversité Côte d’Azur-INRIASophia Antipolis CedexFrance
  2. 2.CRESE EA3190Université Bourgogne Franche-ComtéBesançonFrance