-
Convex Choice
Authors:
Navin Kartik,
Andreas Kleiner
Abstract:
For multidimensional Euclidean type spaces, we study convex choice: from any choice set, the set of types that make the same choice is convex. We establish that, in a suitable sense, this property characterizes the sufficiency of local incentive constraints. Convex choice is also of interest more broadly. We tie convex choice to a notion of directional single-crossing differences (DSCD). For an ex…
▽ More
For multidimensional Euclidean type spaces, we study convex choice: from any choice set, the set of types that make the same choice is convex. We establish that, in a suitable sense, this property characterizes the sufficiency of local incentive constraints. Convex choice is also of interest more broadly. We tie convex choice to a notion of directional single-crossing differences (DSCD). For an expected-utility agent choosing among lotteries, DSCD implies that preferences are either one-dimensional or must take the affine form that has been tractable in multidimensional mechanism design.
△ Less
Submitted 27 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Optimal Delegation in a Multidimensional World
Authors:
Andreas Kleiner
Abstract:
We study a model of delegation in which a principal takes a multidimensional action and an agent has private information about a multidimensional state of the world. The principal can design any direct mechanism, including stochastic ones. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for an arbitrary mechanism to maximize the principal's expected payoff. We also discuss simple conditions which e…
▽ More
We study a model of delegation in which a principal takes a multidimensional action and an agent has private information about a multidimensional state of the world. The principal can design any direct mechanism, including stochastic ones. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for an arbitrary mechanism to maximize the principal's expected payoff. We also discuss simple conditions which ensure that some convex delegation set is optimal. A key step of our analysis shows that a mechanism is incentive compatible if and only if its induced indirect utility is convex and lies below the agent's first-best payoff.
△ Less
Submitted 24 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
-
Sequential Veto Bargaining with Incomplete Information
Authors:
S. Nageeb Ali,
Navin Kartik,
Andreas Kleiner
Abstract:
We study sequential bargaining between a proposer and a veto player. Both have single-peaked preferences, but the proposer is uncertain about the veto player's ideal point. The proposer cannot commit to future proposals. When players are patient, there can be equilibria with Coasian dynamics: the veto player's private information can largely nullify proposer's bargaining power. Our main result, ho…
▽ More
We study sequential bargaining between a proposer and a veto player. Both have single-peaked preferences, but the proposer is uncertain about the veto player's ideal point. The proposer cannot commit to future proposals. When players are patient, there can be equilibria with Coasian dynamics: the veto player's private information can largely nullify proposer's bargaining power. Our main result, however, is that under some conditions there are also equilibria in which the proposer obtains the high payoff that he would with commitment power. The driving force is that the veto player's single-peaked preferences give the proposer an option to "leapfrog", i.e., to secure agreement from only low-surplus types early on to credibly extract surplus from high types later. Methodologically, we exploit the connection between sequential bargaining and static mechanism design.
△ Less
Submitted 6 April, 2023; v1 submitted 4 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
Delegation in Veto Bargaining
Authors:
Navin Kartik,
Andreas Kleiner,
Richard Van Weelden
Abstract:
A proposer requires the approval of a veto player to change a status quo. Preferences are single peaked. Proposer is uncertain about Vetoer's ideal point. We study Proposer's optimal mechanism without transfers. Vetoer is given a menu, or a delegation set, to choose from. The optimal delegation set balances the extent of Proposer's compromise with the risk of a veto. Under reasonable conditions, "…
▽ More
A proposer requires the approval of a veto player to change a status quo. Preferences are single peaked. Proposer is uncertain about Vetoer's ideal point. We study Proposer's optimal mechanism without transfers. Vetoer is given a menu, or a delegation set, to choose from. The optimal delegation set balances the extent of Proposer's compromise with the risk of a veto. Under reasonable conditions, "full delegation" is optimal: Vetoer can choose any action between the status quo and Proposer's ideal action. This outcome largely nullifies Proposer's bargaining power; Vetoer frequently obtains her ideal point, and there is Pareto efficiency despite asymmetric information. More generally, we identify when "interval delegation" is optimal. Optimal interval delegation can be a Pareto improvement over cheap talk. We derive comparative statics. Vetoer receives less discretion when preferences are more likely to be aligned, by contrast to expertise-based delegation. Methodologically, our analysis handles stochastic mechanisms.
△ Less
Submitted 3 May, 2021; v1 submitted 11 June, 2020;
originally announced June 2020.
-
Costly Verification in Collective Decisions
Authors:
Albin Erlanson,
Andreas Kleiner
Abstract:
We study how a principal should optimally choose between implementing a new policy and maintaining the status quo when information relevant for the decision is privately held by agents. Agents are strategic in revealing their information; the principal cannot use monetary transfers to elicit this information, but can verify an agent's claim at a cost. We characterize the mechanism that maximizes t…
▽ More
We study how a principal should optimally choose between implementing a new policy and maintaining the status quo when information relevant for the decision is privately held by agents. Agents are strategic in revealing their information; the principal cannot use monetary transfers to elicit this information, but can verify an agent's claim at a cost. We characterize the mechanism that maximizes the expected utility of the principal. This mechanism can be implemented as a cardinal voting rule, in which agents can either cast a baseline vote, indicating only whether they are in favor of the new policy, or they make specific claims about their type. The principal gives more weight to specific claims and verifies a claim whenever it is decisive.
△ Less
Submitted 20 February, 2020; v1 submitted 30 October, 2019;
originally announced October 2019.
