Consistent Probabilistic Social Choice

Two fundamental axioms in social choice theory are consistency with respect to a variable electorate and consistency with respect to components of similar alternatives. In the context of traditional non‐probabilistic social choice, these axioms are incompatible with each other. We show that in the context of probabilistic social choice, these axioms uniquely characterize a function proposed by Fishburn (1984). Fishburn's function returns so‐called maximal lotteries, that is, lotteries that correspond to optimal mixed strategies in the symmetric zero‐sum game induced by the pairwise majority margins. Maximal lotteries are guaranteed to exist due to von Neumann's Minimax Theorem, are almost always unique, and can be efficiently computed using linear programming.     

Approximation strategy-proof mechanisms for obnoxious facility location on a line

In the facility location game on a line, there are some agents who have fixed locations on the line where an obnoxious facility will be placed. The objective is to maximize the social welfare, e.g., the sum of distances from the facility to all agents. On collecting location information, agents may misreport the locations so as to stay far away from the obnoxious facility. In this paper, strategy-proof mechanisms are designed and the approximation ratio is used to measure the performances of the strategy-proof mechanisms. Two objective functions, maximizing the sum of squares of distances (maxSOS) and maximizing the sum of distances (maxSum), have been considered. For maxSOS, a randomized 5/3-approximated strategy-proof mechanism is proposed, and the lower bound of the approximation ratio is proved to be at least 1.042. For maxSum, the lower bound of the approximation ratio of the randomized strategy-proof mechanism is proved to be 1.077. Moreover, a general model is considered that each agent may have multiple locations on the line. For the objective functions maxSum and maxSOS, both deterministic and randomized strategy-proof mechanisms are investigated, and the deterministic mechanisms are shown to be best possible.     

Separable Preferences,Strategyproofness, and Decomposability

We consider strategyproof social choice functions defined over product domains. If preferences are strict orderings and separable, then strategyproof social choice functions must be decomposable provided that the domain of preferences is rich. We provide several characterization results in the case where preferences are separable only with respect to the elements of some partition of the set of components and these partitions vary across individuals. We characterize the libertarian social choice function and show that no superset of the tops separable domain admits strategyproof nondictatorial social choice functions.     

Ordinally Bayesian Incentive Compatible Voting Rules

We study strategic voting after weakening the notion of strategy‐proofness to Ordinal Bayesian Incentive Compatibility (OBIC). Under OBIC, truth‐telling is required to maximize the expected utility of every voter, expected utility being computed with respect to the voter's prior beliefs and under the assumption that everybody else is also telling the truth. We show that for a special type of priors, i.e., the uniform priors, there exists a large class of social choice functions that are OBIC. However, for priors that are generic in the set of independent beliefs, a social choice function is OBIC only if it is dictatorial. This result underlines the robustness of the Gibbard–Satterthwaite Theorem.     

Efficient Use of Information and Social Value of Information

This paper analyzes equilibrium and welfare for a tractable class of economies (games) that have externalities, strategic complementarity or substitutability, and heterogeneous information. First, we characterize the equilibrium use of information: complementarity heightens the sensitivity of equilibrium actions to public information, raising aggregate volatility, whereas substitutability heightens the sensitivity to private information, raising cross‐sectional dispersion. Next, we define and characterize an efficiency benchmark designed to address whether the equilibrium use of information is optimal from a social perspective; the efficient use of information reflects the social value of aligning choices across agents. Finally, we examine the comparative statics of equilibrium welfare with respect to the information structure; the social value of information is best understood by classifying economies according to the inefficiency, if any, in the equilibrium use of information. We conclude with a few applications, including production externalities, beauty contests, business cycles, and large Cournot and Bertrand games.     

Ambiguity Aversion,Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences

We characterize, in the Anscombe–Aumann framework, the preferences for which there are a utility functionu on outcomes and an ambiguity indexc on the set of probabilities on the states of the world such that, for all acts f and g, . The function u represents the decision maker's risk attitudes, while the index c captures his ambiguity attitudes. These preferences include the multiple priors preferences of Gilboa and Schmeidler and the multiplier preferences of Hansen and Sargent. This provides a rigorous decision‐theoretic foundation for the latter model, which has been widely used in macroeconomics and finance.     

Self‐Control and the Theory of Consumption

To study the behavior of agents who are susceptible to temptation in infinite horizon consumption problems under uncertainty, we define and characterize dynamic self‐control (DSC) preferences. DSC preferences are recursive and separable. In economies with DSC agents, equilibria exist but may be inefficient; in such equilibria, steady state consumption is independent of initial endowments and increases in self‐control. Increasing the preference for commitment while keeping self‐control constant increases the equity premium. Removing nonbinding constraints changes equilibrium allocations and prices. Debt contracts can be sustained even if the only feasible punishment for default is the termination of the contract.     

A Fairness Justification of Utilitarianism

Differences in preferences are important to explain variation in individuals' behavior. There is, however, no consensus on how to take these differences into account when evaluating policies. While prominent in the economic literature, the standard utilitarian criterion is controversial. According to some, interpersonal comparability of utilities involves value judgments with little objective basis. Others argue that social justice is primarily about the distribution of commodities assigned to individuals, rather than their subjective satisfaction or happiness. In this paper, we propose and axiomatically characterize a criterion, named opportunity‐equivalent utilitarian, that addresses these claims. First, our criterion ranks social alternatives on the basis of individuals' ordinal preferences. Second, it compares individuals based on the fairness of their assignments. Opportunity‐equivalent utilitarianism requires society to maximize the sum of specific indices of well‐being that are cardinal, interpersonally comparable, and represent each individual's preferences.     

Optimal Contracts when Enforcement is a Decision Variable

This paper analyzes choice‐theoretic costly enforcement in an intertemporal contracting model with a differentially informed investor and entrepreneur. An intertemporal contract is modeled as a mechanism in which there is limited commitment to payment and enforcement decisions. The goal of the analysis is to characterize the effect of choice‐theoretic costly enforcement on the structure of optimal contracts. The paper shows that simple debt is the optimal contract when commitment is limited and costly enforcement is a decision variable (Theorem 1). In contrast, stochastic contracts are optimal when agents can commit to the ex‐ante optimal decisions (Theorem 2). The paper also shows that the costly state verification model can be viewed as a reduced form of an enforcement model in which agents choose payments and strategies as part of a perfect Bayesian Nash equilibrium.     

Implementation with Near‐Complete Information

Many refinements of Nash equilibrium yield solution correspondences that do not have closed graph in the space of payoffs or information. This has significance for implementation theory, especially under complete information. If a planner is concerned that all equilibria of his mechanism yield a desired outcome, and entertains the possibility that players may have even the slightest uncertainty about payoffs, then the planner should insist on a solution concept with closed graph. We show that this requirement entails substantial restrictions on the set of implementable social choice rules. In particular, when preferences are strict (or more generally, hedonic), while almost any social choice function can be implemented in undominated Nash equilibrium, only monotonic social choice functions can be implemented in the closure of the undominated Nash correspondence.     

Implementation With Contingent Contracts

We study dominant strategy incentive compatibility in a mechanism design setting with contingent contracts where the payoff of each agent is observed by the principal and can be contracted upon. Our main focus is on the class of linear contracts (one of the most commonly used contingent contracts) which consist of a transfer and a flat rate of profit sharing. We characterize outcomes implementable by linear contracts and provide a foundation for them by showing that, in finite type spaces, every social choice function that can be implemented using a more general nonlinear contingent contract can also be implemented using a linear contract. We then qualitatively describe the set of implementable outcomes. We show that a general class of social welfare criteria can be implemented. This class contains social choice functions (such as the Rawlsian) which cannot be implemented using (uncontingent) transfers. Under additional conditions, we show that only social choice functions in this class are implementable.     

QUADRATIC PREFERENCES AND GOAL PROGRAMMING

One of the shortcomings of goal programming lies in its linearity, assumption, specifically in the objective function. This assumption compels one to work with constant marginal utilities and rates of substitution. In this paper a quadratic preference function, which is more consistent with economic theory and reality, is formulated and introduced into goal programming. In an effort to facilitate the understanding of the proposed procedure, two illustrative examples—one with symmetric preferences and the other with asymmetric preferences, both applied to the objective function—are solved and compared with a goal programming solution.     

A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity

We propose and characterize a model of preferences over acts such that the decision maker prefers act f to act g if and only if 𝔼_μφ(𝔼_πu○f) 𝔼_μφ(𝔼_πu○g), where 𝔼 is the expectation operator, u is a von Neumann–Morgenstern utility function, φis an increasing transformation, and μis a subjective probability over the set Πof probability measures πthat the decision maker thinks are relevant given his subjective information. A key feature of our model is that it achieves a separation between ambiguity, identified as a characteristic of the decision maker's subjective beliefs, and ambiguity attitude, a characteristic of the decision maker's tastes. We show that attitudes toward pure risk are characterized by the shape of u, as usual, while attitudes toward ambiguity are characterized by the shape of φ. Ambiguity itself is defined behaviorally and is shown to be characterized by properties of the subjective set of measures Π. One advantage of this model is that the well‐developed machinery for dealing with risk attitudes can be applied as well to ambiguity attitudes. The model is also distinct from many in the literature on ambiguity in that it allows smooth, rather than kinked, indifference curves. This leads to different behavior and improved tractability, while still sharing the main features (e.g., Ellsberg's paradox). The maxmin expected utility model (e.g., Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989)) with a given set of measures may be seen as a limiting case of our model with infinite ambiguity aversion. Two illustrative portfolio choice examples are offered.     

Priority Rules and Other Asymmetric Rationing Methods

In a rationing problem, each agent demands a quantity of a certain commodity and the available resources fall short of total demand. A rationing method solves this problem at every level of resources and individual demands. We impose three axioms: Consistency—with respect to variations of the set of agents—Upper Composition and Lower Composition—with respect to variations of the available resources. In the model where the commodity comes in indivisible units, the three axioms characterize the family of priority rules, where individual demands are met lexicographically according to an exogeneous ordering of the agents. In the (more familiar) model where the commodity is divisible, these three axioms plus Scale Invariance—independence of the measurement unit—characterize a rich family of methods. It contains exactly three symmetric methods, giving equal shares to equal demands: these are the familiar proportional, uniform gains, and uniform losses methods. The asymmetric methods in the family partition the agents into priority classes; within each class, they use either the proportional method or a weighted version of the uniform gains or uniform losses methods.     

Competition and Coordination in Two‐Tier Public Service Systems under Government Fiscal Policy

As a result of government budgetary limits and rapid market growth, many public service systems—such as health care—are characterized by extensive customer wait times that have become a serious problem. This problem might be solved by allowing private firms to enter these markets, which would provide customers with a choice between a free (governmental) public service provider (SP) and a fee‐charging (or “toll”) private SP. In such a two‐tier service system, the two SPs are differentiated by service quality and cost efficiency. This study focuses on the competition and coordination issues for two‐tier service systems with customers who are sensitive to both service quality and delay. The free system attempts to maximize its expected total customer utility with limited capacity, whereas the toll system attempts to maximize its profit. Neither goal is aligned with the social welfare goal of the public service. To achieve the social welfare goal, the government plays a crucial role in coordinating the two‐tier service system via the budget, the tradeoff of social members' goals, and tax‐subsidy policies. Using a mixed duopoly game, we establish Nash equilibrium strategies and identify the conditions for the existence of the two‐tier service system. We employ several interesting and counter‐intuitive managerial insights generated by the model to show that the public service can be delivered more efficiently via customer choice and SP competition. In addition, we show that a relatively low tax‐subsidy rate can almost perfectly coordinate the two SPs to achieve most of the maximum possible benefit of the two‐tier service system.     

Super-stability in the student-project allocation problem with ties

The Student-Project Allocation problem with lecturer preferences over Students (spa-s) involves assigning students to projects based on student preferences over projects, lecturer preferences over students, and the maximum number of students that each project and lecturer can accommodate. This classical model assumes that each project is offered by one lecturer and that preference lists are strictly ordered. Here, we study a generalisation of spa-s where ties are allowed in the preference lists of students and lecturers, which we refer to as the Student-Project Allocation problem with lecturer preferences over Students with Ties (spa-st). We investigate stable matchings under the most robust definition of stability in this context, namely super-stability. We describe the first polynomial-time algorithm to find a super-stable matching or to report that no such matching exists, given an instance of spa-st. Our algorithm runs in O(L) time, where L is the total length of all the preference lists. Finally, we present results obtained from an empirical evaluation of the linear-time algorithm based on randomly-generated spa-st instances. Our main finding is that, whilst super-stable matchings can be elusive when ties are present in the students’ and lecturers’ preference lists, the probability of such a matching existing is significantly higher if ties are restricted to the lecturers’ preference lists.

     

Multiple Temptations

We use a preference‐over‐menus framework to model a decision maker who is affected by multiple temptations. Our two main axioms on preference—exclusion and inclusion—identify when the agent would want to restrict his choice set and when he would want to expand his choice set. An agent who is tempted would want to restrict his choice set by excluding the normatively worst alternative of that choice set. Simultaneously, he would want to expand his choice set by including a normatively superior alternative. Our representation identifies the agent's normative preference and temptations, and suggests the agent is uncertain which of these temptations will affect him. We provide examples to illustrate how our model improves on those of Gul and Pesendorfer (2001) and Dekel, Lipman, and Rustichini (2009).     

Homo Moralis—Preference Evolution Under Incomplete Information and Assortative Matching

What preferences will prevail in a society of rational individuals when preference evolution is driven by the resulting payoffs? We show that when individuals' preferences are their private information, a convex combination of selfishness and morality stands out as evolutionarily stable. We call individuals with such preferences homo moralis. At one end of the spectrum is homo oeconomicus, who acts so as to maximize his or her own payoff. At the opposite end is homo kantiensis, who does what would be “the right thing to do,” in terms of payoffs, if all others would do likewise. We show that the stable degree of morality—the weight placed on the moral goal—is determined by the degree of assortativity in the process whereby individuals are matched to interact.     

Strategyproof mechanism design for facility location games with weighted agents on a line

Approximation mechanism design without money was first studied in Procaccia and Tennenholtz (2009) by considering a facility location game. In general, a facility is being opened and the cost of an agent is measured by its distance to the facility. In order to achieve a good social cost, a mechanism selects the location of the facility based on the locations reported by agents. It motivates agents to strategically report their locations to get good outcomes for themselves. A mechanism is called strategyproof if no agents could manipulate to get a better outcome by telling lies regardless of any configuration of other agents. The main contribution in this paper is to explore the strategyproof mechanisms without money when agents are distinguishable. There are two main variations on the nature of agents. One is that agents prefer getting closer to the facility, while the other is that agents prefer being far away from the facility. We first consider the model that directly extends the model in Procaccia and Tennenholtz (2009). In particular, we consider the strategyproof mechanisms without money when agents are weighted. We show that the strategyproof mechanisms in the case of unweighted agents are still the best in the weighted cases. We establish tight lower and upper bounds for approximation ratios on the optimal social utility and the minimum utility when agents prefer to stay close to the facility. We then provide the lower and upper bounds on the optimal social utility and lower bound on the minimum distance per weight when agents prefer to stay far away from the facility. We also extend our study in a natural direction where two facilities must be built on a real line. Secondly, we propose an novel threshold based model to distinguish agents. In this model, we present a strategyproof mechanism that leads to optimal solutions in terms of social cost.     

Leverage and Default in Binomial Economies: A Complete Characterization

Our paper provides a complete characterization of leverage and default in binomial economies with financial assets serving as collateral. Our Binomial No‐Default Theorem states that any equilibrium is equivalent (in real allocations and prices) to another equilibrium in which there is no default. Thus actual default is irrelevant, though the potential for default drives the equilibrium and limits borrowing. This result is valid with arbitrary preferences and endowments, contingent or noncontingent promises, many assets and consumption goods, production, and multiple periods. We also show that only no‐default equilibria would be selected if there were the slightest cost of using collateral or handling default. Our Binomial Leverage Theorem shows that equilibrium Loan to Value (LTV) for noncontingent debt contracts is the ratio of the worst‐case return of the asset to the riskless gross rate of interest. In binomial economies, leverage is determined by down risk and not by volatility.