×

A simple market-like allocation mechanism for public goods. (English) Zbl 1393.91067

Summary: We argue that since allocation mechanisms will not always be in equilibrium, their out-of-equilibrium properties must be taken into account along with their properties in equilibrium. For economies with public goods, we define a simple market-like mechanism in which the strong Nash equilibria yield the Lindahl allocations and prices. The mechanism satisfies critical out-of-equilibrium desiderata that previously-introduced mechanisms fail to satisfy, and always (weakly) yields Pareto improvements, whether in equilibrium or not. The mechanism requires participants to communicate prices and quantities, and turns these into outcomes according to a natural and intuitive outcome function. Our approach first exploits the equivalence, when there are only two participants, between the private-good and public-good allocation problems to obtain a two-person public-good mechanism, and then we generalize the public-good mechanism to an arbitrary number of participants. The results and the intuition behind them are illustrated in the familiar Edgeworth Box and Kölm Triangle diagrams.

MSC:

91B18 Public goods
91B32 Resource and cost allocation (including fair division, apportionment, etc.)
91B50 General equilibrium theory
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Aumann, R., Acceptable points in general cooperative \(N\) person games, (Contributions to the Theory of Games IV (1959), Princeton University Press) · Zbl 0085.13005
[2] Bagnoli, M.; Lipman, B., Provision of public goods: fully implementing the core through private contributions, Rev. Econ. Stud., 56, 583-602 (1989) · Zbl 0686.90012
[3] Bernheim, D.; Peleg, B.; Whinston, M., Coalition proof Nash equilibria I: concepts, J. Econ. Theory, 42, 1-12 (1987) · Zbl 0619.90090
[4] Binmore, K., Nash bargaining III, (Binmore; Dasgupta, The Economics of Bargaining (1987))
[5] Buchanan, J., The Demand and Supply of Public Goods (1968), Rand McNally: Rand McNally Chicago
[6] Chen, Y.; Plott, C., The Groves-Ledyard mechanism: an experimental study of institutional design, J. Public Econ., 59, 335-364 (1996)
[7] Chen, Y.; Tang, F., Learning and incentive compatible mechanisms for public good provision: an experimental study, J. Polit. Economy, 106, 633-662 (1998)
[8] Chen, Y., A family of supermodular Nash mechanisms implementing Lindahl allocations, Econ. Theory, 19, 773-790 (2002) · Zbl 1011.91006
[9] Chen, Y.; Gazzale, R., When does learning in games generate convergence to Nash equilibria? The role of supermodularity in an experimental setting, Amer. Econ. Rev., 94, 1505-1535 (2004)
[10] Corchon, L.; Wilkie, S., Double implementation of the ratio correspondence by a market mechanism, Econ. Design, 2, 325-337 (1996)
[11] de Trenqualye, P., Stable implementation of Lindahl allocations, Econ. Letters, 29, 291-294 (1989) · Zbl 1328.91146
[12] de Trenqualye, P., Nash implementation of Lindahl allocations, Soc. Choice Welfare, 11, 83-94 (1994) · Zbl 0805.90004
[13] Dubey, P., Price quantity strategic market games, Econometrica, 50, 111-126 (1982) · Zbl 0485.90030
[14] Giraud, G., Strategic market games: an introduction, J. Math. Econ., 39, 355-375 (2003) · Zbl 1042.91502
[15] Groves, T.; Ledyard, J., A solution to the “free rider” problem, Econometrica, 45, 783-809 (1977) · Zbl 0363.90015
[16] Healy, P., Learning dynamics for mechanism design: an experimental comparison of public goods mechanisms, J. Econ. Theory, 129, 1, 114-149 (2006) · Zbl 1132.91431
[17] Healy, P.; Mathevet, L., Designing stable mechanisms for economic environments, Theoretical Econ., 7, 3, 609-661 (2012) · Zbl 1395.91299
[18] Hurwicz, L., On informationally decentralized systems, (McGuire, C. B.; Radner, R., Decision and Organization (1972)) · Zbl 0254.90009
[19] Hurwicz, L., Outcome functions yielding Walrasian and Lindahl allocations at Nash equilibrium points, Rev. Econ. Stud., 46, 217-224 (1979) · Zbl 0417.90027
[20] Kim, T., A stable Nash mechanism implementing Lindahl allocations for quasi-linear environments, J. Math. Econ., 22, 359-371 (1993) · Zbl 0797.90009
[21] Ledyard, J., Non-coercion, efficiency, and incentive compatibility in public goods decisions, (Martinez-Vazquez, J.; Winer, S., Coercion and Social Welfare in Public Finance (2014), Cambridge University Press)
[22] Peleg, B., Double implementation of the Lindahl equilibrium by a continuous mechanism, Econ. Design, 2, 311-324 (1996)
[23] Schlesinger, H., On the analytics of pure public good provision, Public Finance, 1, 102-109 (1989)
[24] Schmeidler, D., Walrasian analysis via strategic outcome functions, Econometrica, 48, 1585-1593 (1980) · Zbl 0457.90014
[25] Shapley, L.; Shubik, M., Trade using one commodity as means of payment, J. Polit. Economy, 85, 937-968 (1977)
[26] Smith, V., An experimental study of competitive market behavior, J. Polit. Economy, 70, 111-137 (1962)
[27] Thomson, W., Economies with public goods: an elementary geometric exposition, J. Public Econ. Theory, 1, 139-176 (1999)
[28] Tian, G., Double implementation of Lindahl allocations by a pure mechanism, Soc. Choice Welfare, 17, 125-141 (2000) · Zbl 1069.91574
[29] Van Essen, M., Information complexity, punishment, and stability in two Nash efficient Lindahl mechanisms, Rev. Econ. Design, 16, 15-40 (2012) · Zbl 1239.91071
[30] Van Essen, M., A simple supermodular mechanism that implements Lindahl allocations, J. Public Econ. Theory, 15, 363-377 (2013)
[31] Van Essen, M., Bartering games in the Kolm triangle, J. Public Econ. Theory, 17, 297-310 (2015)
[32] Van Essen, M.; Lazzati, N.; Walker, M., Out-of-equilibrium performance of three Lindahl mechanisms: experimental evidence, Games Econ. Behav., 74, 366-381 (2012) · Zbl 1279.91052
[33] Varian, H., A solution to the problem of externalities when agents are well-informed, Amer. Econ. Rev., 84, 1278-1293 (1994)
[34] Walker, M., A simple incentive compatible scheme for attaining Lindahl allocations, Econometrica, 49, 65-71 (1981) · Zbl 0446.90009
[36] Wilson, R., Competitive exchange, Econometrica, 46, 577-585 (1978) · Zbl 0371.90127
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.