On the location of public bads: strategy-proofness under two-dimensional single-dipped preferences

被引:10
作者
Ozturk, Murat [1 ]
Peters, Hans [1 ]
Storcken, Ton [1 ]
机构
[1] Maastricht Univ, Dept Quantitat Econ, NL-6200 MD Maastricht, Netherlands
关键词
Single-dipped preferences; Pareto optimality; Strategy-proofness; Committee voting; EXISTENCE;
D O I
10.1007/s00199-013-0785-8
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
In a model with finitely many agents who have single-dipped Euclidean preferences on a polytope in the Euclidean plane, a rule assigns to each profile of reported dips a point of the polytope. A point of the polytope is called single-best if there is a point of the polytope such that is the unique point of the polytope at maximal distance from . It is proved that if the polytope does not have either exactly two single-best points or exactly four single-best points which form the vertices of a rectangle, then any Pareto optimal and strategy-proof rule is dictatorial. If the polytope has exactly two single-best points, then there are non-dictatorial strategy-proof and Pareto optimal rules, which can be described by committee voting (simple games) between the two single-best points. This also holds if there are exactly four single-best points which form the vertices of a rectangle, but in that case, we limit ourselves to describing an example of such a rule. The framework under consideration models situations where public bads such as garbage dumping grounds or nuclear plants have to be located within a confined region.
引用
收藏
页码:83 / 108
页数:26
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]  
Aliprantis CD., 2006, Infinite dimensional analysis, A hitchhiker's guide
[2]   Domains, ranges and strategy-proofness: the case of single-dipped preferences [J].
Barbera, Salvador ;
Berga, Dolors ;
Moreno, Bernardo .
SOCIAL CHOICE AND WELFARE, 2012, 39 (2-3) :335-352
[3]   Taxing pollution: agglomeration and welfare consequences [J].
Berliant, Marcus ;
Peng, Shin-Kun ;
Wang, Ping .
ECONOMIC THEORY, 2014, 55 (03) :665-704
[4]   NIMBY and mechanism design under different constitutional constraints [J].
Besfamille, Martin ;
Lozachmeur, Jean-Marie .
INTERNATIONAL TAX AND PUBLIC FINANCE, 2010, 17 (02) :114-132
[5]   ON THE RATIONALE OF GROUP DECISION-MAKING [J].
Black, Duncan .
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 1948, 56 (01) :23-34
[6]   STRAIGHTFORWARD ELECTIONS, UNANIMITY AND PHANTOM VOTERS [J].
BORDER, KC ;
JORDAN, JS .
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES, 1983, 50 (01) :153-170
[7]   Probabilistic allocation rules and single-dipped preferences [J].
Ehlers, L .
SOCIAL CHOICE AND WELFARE, 2002, 19 (02) :325-348
[8]   MANIPULATION OF VOTING SCHEMES - GENERAL RESULT [J].
GIBBARD, A .
ECONOMETRICA, 1973, 41 (04) :587-601
[9]   EXISTENCE OF GROUP PREFERENCE FUNCTIONS [J].
HANSSON, B .
PUBLIC CHOICE, 1976, 28 (WIN) :89-98
[10]   A NOTE ON THE SIMPLE MAJORITY DECISION RULE [J].
INADA, K .
ECONOMETRICA, 1964, 32 (04) :525-531