Foundations of Dominant Strategy Mechanisms

Wilson (1987) criticizes the existing literature of game theory as relying too much on common-knowledge assumptions. In reaction to Wilson's critique, the recent literature of mechanism design has started to employ stronger solution concepts such as dominant strategy incentive compatibility, and restrict attention to simpler mechanisms such as dominant strategy mechanisms. However, there has been little theory behind this approach. In particular, it has not been made clear why employing simpler mechanisms, instead of more complicated ones, is the correct way to address Wilson's critique. This paper aims at filling this void. We propose a potential theory, known as the {\it maxmin} theory, which postulates that a {\it cautious} mechanism designer, facing uncertainty over which (common-knowledge) assumptions are valid and which are not, would indeed rationally choose simpler mechanisms such as dominant strategy mechanisms. In this paper, we summarize our progress in proving this theory, explore other possible theories, and discuss related theoretical questions that will be of interest in other areas

[1]  C. d'Aspremont,et al.  Incentives and incomplete information , 1979 .

[2]  Roger B. Myerson,et al.  Optimal Auction Design , 1981, Math. Oper. Res..

[3]  Robert B. Wilson Game-Theoretic Analysis of Trading Processes. , 1985 .

[4]  S. Zamir,et al.  Formulation of Bayesian analysis for games with incomplete information , 1985 .

[5]  Richard P. McLean,et al.  Optimal Selling Strategies under Uncertainty for a Discriminating Monopolist When Demands Are Interdependent , 1985 .

[6]  Richard P. McLean,et al.  FULL EXTRACTION OF THE SURPLUS IN BAYESIAN AND DOMINANT STRATEGY AUCTIONS , 1988 .

[7]  Eddie Dekel,et al.  Hierarchies of Beliefs and Common Knowledge , 1993 .

[8]  Kim C. Border,et al.  Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker’s Guide , 1994 .

[9]  S. Morris The Common Prior Assumption in Economic Theory , 1995, Economics and Philosophy.

[10]  Barton L. Lipman,et al.  FINITE ORDER IMPLICATIONS OF COMMON PRIORS , 1997 .

[11]  Faruk Gul A Comment on Aumann's Bayesian View , 1998 .

[12]  E. Maskin,et al.  Quarterly Journal of Economics Efficient Auctions* Partha Dasgupta and Eric Maskin , 2000 .

[13]  Giuseppe Lopomo Optimality and Robustness of the English Auction , 2001, Games Econ. Behav..

[14]  An E¢cient Auction ¤ , 2001 .

[15]  P. Reny,et al.  AN EFFICIENT AUCTION , 2002 .

[16]  Ilya Segal,et al.  Optimal Pricing Mechanisms with Unknown Demand , 2002 .

[17]  D. Bergemann,et al.  Robust Mechanism Design , 2003 .

[18]  Zvika Neeman The effectiveness of English auctions , 2003, Games Econ. Behav..

[19]  Zvika Neeman,et al.  The relevance of private information in mechanism design , 2004, J. Econ. Theory.

[20]  Jonathan Weinstein,et al.  Finite-Order Implications of Any Equilibrium , 2004 .

[21]  Jeffrey C. Ely,et al.  Hierarchies of Belief and Interim Rationalizability , 2004 .

[22]  Stephen Morris,et al.  Topologies on Types , 2005 .

[23]  B. Moldovanu,et al.  The Limits of ex post Implementation , 2006 .

[24]  D. Fudenberg,et al.  Interim Correlated Rationalizability , 2007 .

[25]  Aviad Heifetz,et al.  On the Generic (Im)possibility of Full Surplus Extraction in Mechanism Design , 2006 .

[26]  S. Bikhchandani Ex post implementation in environments with private goods , 2006 .