Strategy-proofness, investment efficiency, and marginal returns: an equivalence

The market design literature has successfully designed mechanisms that achieve desirable properties such as strategy-proofness (incentive compatibility) and efficiency at the allocation stage. However, agents must often make investment decisions before participating in allocation mechanisms. These decisions are endogenous, in the sense that market participants' investments depend on the choice of mechanism. The goal of this paper is to understand when it is possible to design fully efficient mechanisms, i.e., mechanisms that both are efficient ex post and induce agents to make efficient investment decisions ex ante. To do so, we consider a general public choice setting (with transfers). Our framework includes, but is not limited to, object allocation settings such as auctions as well as two-sided matching environments such as residency matching. In our setting, payoffs depend not only on the outcome selected by the mechanism but also on agents' pre-mechanism investment choices. We say that a mechanism induces efficient investment by an agent if the investment choices that maximize the utility of that agent coincide with the investment choices that maximize social welfare. Our first main result shows that a mechanism induces efficient investment if and only if it provides marginal rewards, in the sense that the change in an agent's utility when that agent adjusts her investment is equal to the associated change in social welfare. For our second main result, we focus on ex post efficient mechanisms, i.e., mechanisms that select welfare-maximizing outcomes given agents' investment decisions. We show that for ex post efficient mechanisms, inducing efficient investment and providing marginal rewards are both equivalent to strategy-proofness. We extend our equivalence results to approximate versions of the aforementioned properties. Our results imply that under the Kelso--Crawford (1982) worker-optimal stable mechanism (with discrete transfers), workers are incentivized to make approximately efficient human capital investments before entering the labor market (conditional on the actions of firms).

[1]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  Strategy-Proofness versus Efficiency in Matching with Indifferences: Redesigning the NYC High School Match , 2009 .

[2]  Ilya Segal,et al.  Deferred-acceptance auctions and radio spectrum reallocation , 2014, EC.

[3]  Atila Abdulkadiroglu,et al.  School Choice: A Mechanism Design Approach , 2003 .

[4]  O. Williamson Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations , 1979, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[5]  Faruk Gul,et al.  WALRASIAN EQUILIBRIUM WITH GROSS SUBSTITUTES , 1999 .

[6]  Philippe Aghion,et al.  RENEGOTIATION DESIGN WITH UNVERIFIABLE INFORMATION , 1994 .

[7]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Computational-Mechanism Design: A Call to Arms , 2003, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[8]  Sanford J. Grossman,et al.  The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration , 1986 .

[9]  Leandro Arozamena,et al.  Investment Incentives in Procurement Auctions , 2000 .

[10]  G. Becker,et al.  Nobel Lecture: The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior , 1993, Journal of Political Economy.

[11]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  The Boston Public School Match , 2005 .

[12]  A. Roth,et al.  The Redesign of the Matching Market for American Physicians: Some Engineering Aspects of Economic Design , 1999, The American economic review.

[13]  O. Williamson Credible Commitments: Using Hostages to Support Exchange , 1983 .

[14]  V. Crawford,et al.  Job Matching, Coalition Formation, and Gross Substitutes , 1982 .

[15]  O. Hart,et al.  Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm , 1988, Journal of Political Economy.

[16]  Leonardo Felli,et al.  Does Competition Solve the Hold‐Up Problem? , 2000, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[17]  W. Rogerson Contractual Solutions to the Hold-Up Problem , 1992 .

[18]  Tamás Fleiner,et al.  A Fixed-Point Approach to Stable Matchings and Some Applications , 2003, Math. Oper. Res..

[19]  Paul Milgrom,et al.  Putting Auction Theory to Work , 2004 .

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

[21]  Eduardo M. Azevedo Imperfect competition in two-sided matching markets , 2014, Games Econ. Behav..

[22]  Roland G. Fryer,et al.  Valuing Diversity , 2013, Journal of Political Economy.

[23]  Jacques Cremer,et al.  A Sequential Solution to the Public Goods Problem , 1985 .

[24]  Jerry R. Green,et al.  Characterization of Satisfactory Mechanisms for the Revelation of Preferences for Public Goods , 1977 .

[25]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  The New York City High School Match , 2005 .

[26]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Optimal auctions revisited , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[27]  J. Suijs On incentive compatibility and budget balancedness in public decision making , 1996 .

[28]  M. Friedman,et al.  A Program for Monetary Stability. , 1962 .

[29]  R. McAfee,et al.  Auctions with entry , 1987 .

[30]  L. Shapley,et al.  The assignment game I: The core , 1971 .

[31]  V. Crawford,et al.  Job Matching with Heterogeneous Firms and Workers , 1981 .

[32]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  Matching with Contracts , 2005 .

[33]  M. Balinski,et al.  A Tale of Two Mechanisms: Student Placement , 1999 .