Lombardi, Michele and Yoshihara, Naoki (2011): Partially-honest Nash implementation: Characterization results.
Download (365Kb) | Preview
This paper studies implementation problems in the wake of a recent new trend of implementation theory which incorporates a non-consequentialist flavor of the evidence from experimental and behavioral economics into the issues. Specifically, following the seminal works by Matsushima (2008) and Dutta and Sen (2009), the paper considers implementation problems with partially honest agents, which presume that there exists at least one individual in the society who concerns herself with not only outcomes but also honest behavior at least in a limited manner. Given this setting, the paper provides a general characterization of Nash implementation with partially-honest individuals. It also provides the necessary and sufficient condition for Nash implementation with partially-honest individuals by mechanisms with some types of strategy-space reductions. As a consequence, it shows that, in contrast to the case of the standard framework, the equivalence between Nash implementation and Nash implementation with strategy space reduction no longer holds.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Partially-honest Nash implementation: Characterization results|
|English Title:||Partially-honest Nash implementation: Characterization results|
|Keywords:||Nash implementation, canonical-mechanisms, s-mechanisms, self-relevant mechanisms, partial-honesty, permissive results.|
|Subjects:||D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D03 - Behavioral Economics; Underlying Principles
D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D71 - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C72 - Noncooperative Games
|Depositing User:||Michele Lombardi|
|Date Deposited:||17. Feb 2011 18:21|
|Last Modified:||21. Feb 2013 08:42|
Benoît, J.P. and E.A. Ok (2006): Nash implementation with limited no-veto power. Games and Economic Behavior, 55, 331-339.
Benoît, J.P. and E.A. Ok (2008): Nash implementation without no-veto power. Games and Economic Behavior, 64, 51-67.
Bergmann, D., Morris, S., and O. Tercieux (2010): Rationalizable implementation. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper, n. 1697R.
Busetto, F. and G. Codognato (2009): Reconsidering two-agent Nash implementation. Social Choice and Welfare, 32, 171-179.
Cabrales, A. and R. Serrano (2010): Implementation in adaptive better-response dynamics: Towards a general theory of bounded rationality in mechanisms. Brown University, Department of Economics, Working Paper 2007-10.
Camerer, C.F. (2003): Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Danilov, V. (1992): Implementation via Nash equilibria. Econometrica, 60, 43-56.
Dutta, B. and A. Sen (1991): A necessary and sufficient condition for two-person Nash implementation. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 121-128.
Dutta, B. and A. Sen (2009): Nash implementation with partially-honest individuals. Warwick Economic Research Papers, n. 920, Warwick University.
Dutta, B., Sen, A., and Vohra, R. (1995): Nash implementation through elementary mechanisms in economic environments. Economic Design, 1, 173-204.
Eliaz, K. (2002): Fault-Tolerant Implementation. Review of Economic Studies, 69, 589-610.
Gneezy, U. (2005): Deception: The Role of Consequences. American Economic Review, 95, 384--394.
Hurkens, S. and N. Kartik (2009): Would I Lie to You? On Social Preferences and Lying Aversion. Experimental Economics, 12, 180-192.
Hurwicz, L. (1960): Optimality and informational efficiency in resource allocation processes. In: Arrow, K.J., Karlin, S., Suppes, P. (eds), Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences. Stanford University Press, 27-46.
Hurwicz, L. (1972): On Informationally Decentralized Systems," in Decision and Organization, ed. by R. Radner and C. B.McGuire, North-Holland, 297--336.
Hurwicz, L. (1986): On the Implementation of Social Choice Rules in Irrational Societies. In Social Choice and Public Decision Making, Essays in Honor of Kenneth J. Arrow Volume I, ed. by W. Heller, R. Starr and D. Starrett. Cambridge University Press, USA.
Hurwicz, L. and D. Schmeidler (1978): Outcome functions which guarnatee the existence and Pareto optimality of Nash equilibria. Econometrica, 46, 144-174.
Jackson, M. (2001): A crash course in implementation theory. Social Choice and Welfare, 18, 655-708.
Lombardi, M. and N. Yoshihara (2010): A full characterization of Nash implementation with strategy space reduction. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1593690.
Lombardi, M. and N. Yoshihara (2011): On partially-honest Nash implementation by self-relevant mechanisms: A stronger definition of partial-honesty. Mimeo in progress, Hitotsubashi University.
Maskin, E. (1999): Nash equilibrium and welfare optimality. Review of Economic Studies, 66, 23-38.
Maskin, E. and T. Sjöström (2002): The theory of implementation. In Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, Vol. 1, K. Arrow, A.K. Sen and K. Suzumura, eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Matsushima, H. (2008): Role of honesty in full implementation. Journal of Economic Theory, 139, 353-359.
Moore, J., and R. Repullo (1990): Nash implementation: A full characterization. Econometrica, 58, 1083-1100.
Pazner, E. and D. Schmeidler (1978): Egalitarian equivalent allocations: A new concept of economic equity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 92, 671-687.
Renou, L. and K.H. Schlag (2009): Minimax regret implementation. Forthcoming in Games and Economic Behavior.
Repullo, R. (1987): A Simple Proof of Maskin Theorem on Nash Implementation. Social Choice and Welfare, 4, 39-41.
Sen, A.K. (1997): Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrica, 65, 745-779.
Saijo, T. (1988): Strategy space reduction in Maskin's theorem: sufficient conditions for Nash implementation. Econometrica, 56, 693-700.
Saijo, T., Tatamitani, Y., and Yamato, T. (1996): Toward natural implementation, International Economic Review, 37, 949-980.
Sjöström, T. (1991): On the necessary and sufficient conditions for Nash implementation. Social Choice and Welfare, 8, 333-340.
Tatamitani, Y. (2001): Implementation by self-relevant mechanisms. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 35, 427-444.
Tatamitani, Y. (2002): Implementation by self-relevant mechanisms: application. Mathematical Social Science, 44, 253-276.
Vartiainen, H. (2007): Nash implementation and bargaining problem. Social Choice and Welfare, 29, 333-351.
Yamato, T. (1992): On Nash implementation of social choice correspondences. Games and Economic Behavior, 4, 484-492.