Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Social Choice and Welfare 4/2021

08-06-2021 | Original Paper

Information disclosure with many alternatives

Authors: Salvador Barberà, Antonio Nicolò

Published in: Social Choice and Welfare | Issue 4/2021

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We consider two-stage collective decision problems where some agents have private information about alternatives and others don’t. In the first stage informed agents (experts) may or may not disclose their private information, thus eventually influencing the preferences of those initially uninformed. In the second stage the resulting preferences of all agents after disclosure are aggregated by a social choice function. We provide general conditions on social choice functions guaranteeing that the collective outcome will be the same that would obtain if all agents shared all the information available in society. Experts should be granted a coalitional veto power: changes in the social outcome that are due to changes in the preferences of other agents after information disclosure should not harm all the experts at the same time. We then specialize our general results. When the set of experts is a priori determined, we characterize those strategy-proof rules defined on single-peaked or separable preference domains that ensure that desired level of information disclosure. We also prove that, when the set of experts is unknown, no voting rule can fully achieve this goal, but majority voting provides a unique second best solution when preference profiles are single-peaked.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Another difference with respect to paper of Jackson and Tan (2013) is that in their setting experts do not participate in the decision process.
 
2
Mathis (2011) extends Austen-Smith and Feddersen’s model incorporating the possibility that individuals may provide verifiable evidence supporting their private information and shows that unanimity is the only voting rule that always promotes fully revealing deliberation.
 
3
This assumption will be relaxed in Sect. 6.
 
4
To relax the assumption that non-experts do not have private information, we could assume otherwise that non-experts may have some information but lack the technology to disclose it effectively, and adjust the type of that agent to only react when she acquires additional information.
 
5
Mizukami and Wakayama (2007) prove that if a social choice function satisfies both strategy-proofness and quasi-strong-non-bossiness, then it is dominant strategy implementable by the associated direct revelation. A social choice function f satisfies quasi-strong-non-bossiness if, for all \(R,R'\), all \(i\in A\), and all \(R_{-i}''\), \(f(R_i, R''_{-i})I_{i}f(R'_i, R''_{-i})\) then \(f(R_i, R''_{-i})=f(R'_i, R''_{-i})\). It is easy to check that generalized median voter rules satisfy this property.
 
6
A social choice function \(f :{\mathcal {R}}^n \rightarrow X\text {,}\) is anonymous if for all \(R ,R^{ \prime } ,\) \(f(R) =f(R^{ \prime })\) whenever R is a permutation of \(R^{ \prime }\) .
 
7
This result contrasts with Jackson and Tan (2013)’s conclusion that unanimity is the superior method in their context. This is due to the fact that experts are not voters in their context, while they have a relevant say on the outcome in our case.
 
Literature
go back to reference Austen-Smith D, Banks JS (1996) Information aggregation, rationality, and the condorcet Jury theorem. Am Politi Sci Rev 90:34–45CrossRef Austen-Smith D, Banks JS (1996) Information aggregation, rationality, and the condorcet Jury theorem. Am Politi Sci Rev 90:34–45CrossRef
go back to reference Austen-Smith D, Feddersen TJ (2005) Deliberation and voting rules. In: Jeffrey SB, Austen-Smith D, John D (eds) Social choice and strategic decisions: essays in honor. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRef Austen-Smith D, Feddersen TJ (2005) Deliberation and voting rules. In: Jeffrey SB, Austen-Smith D, John D (eds) Social choice and strategic decisions: essays in honor. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRef
go back to reference Austen-Smith D, Feddersen TJ (2006) Deliberation, preference uncertainty, and voting rules. Am Polit Sci Rev 100(2):211–217CrossRef Austen-Smith D, Feddersen TJ (2006) Deliberation, preference uncertainty, and voting rules. Am Polit Sci Rev 100(2):211–217CrossRef
go back to reference Austen-Smith D, Wright JR (1992) Competitive lobbying for a legislators vote. Soc Choice Welf 9(3):229–257CrossRef Austen-Smith D, Wright JR (1992) Competitive lobbying for a legislators vote. Soc Choice Welf 9(3):229–257CrossRef
go back to reference Barberà S, Sonneischein H, Zhou L (1991) Voting by committees. Econometrica 59(3):262–289CrossRef Barberà S, Sonneischein H, Zhou L (1991) Voting by committees. Econometrica 59(3):262–289CrossRef
go back to reference Barberà S, Gul F, Stacchetti E (1993) Generalized median voter schemes and committees. J Econ Theory 61(2):262–289CrossRef Barberà S, Gul F, Stacchetti E (1993) Generalized median voter schemes and committees. J Econ Theory 61(2):262–289CrossRef
go back to reference Bhattacharya S, Mukherjee A (2013) Strategic information revelation when experts compete to influence. RAND J Econ 44(3):522–544CrossRef Bhattacharya S, Mukherjee A (2013) Strategic information revelation when experts compete to influence. RAND J Econ 44(3):522–544CrossRef
go back to reference Dutta B, Sen A (2011) Nash implementation with partially honest individuals. Games Econ Behav 74:154–169CrossRef Dutta B, Sen A (2011) Nash implementation with partially honest individuals. Games Econ Behav 74:154–169CrossRef
go back to reference Feddersen T, Pesendorfer W (1998) Convicting the innocent: the inferiority of unanimous Jury verdicts under strategic voting. Am Polit Sci Rev 92(1):23–35CrossRef Feddersen T, Pesendorfer W (1998) Convicting the innocent: the inferiority of unanimous Jury verdicts under strategic voting. Am Polit Sci Rev 92(1):23–35CrossRef
go back to reference Gentzkow M, Kamenica E (2017) Competition in Persuasion. Rev Econ Stud 84(1):300–322CrossRef Gentzkow M, Kamenica E (2017) Competition in Persuasion. Rev Econ Stud 84(1):300–322CrossRef
go back to reference Gilligan TW, Krehbiel K (1989) Asymmetric information and legislative rules with a heterogeneous committee. Am J Polit Sci 33(2):459–490CrossRef Gilligan TW, Krehbiel K (1989) Asymmetric information and legislative rules with a heterogeneous committee. Am J Polit Sci 33(2):459–490CrossRef
go back to reference Gilligan TW, Krehbiel K (1990) Organization of informative committees by a rational legislature. Am J Polit Sci 34(2):531–564CrossRef Gilligan TW, Krehbiel K (1990) Organization of informative committees by a rational legislature. Am J Polit Sci 34(2):531–564CrossRef
go back to reference Jackson MO, Tan X (2013) Deliberation, disclosure of information, and voting. J Econ Theory 148(1):2–30CrossRef Jackson MO, Tan X (2013) Deliberation, disclosure of information, and voting. J Econ Theory 148(1):2–30CrossRef
go back to reference Kartik N, Tercieux O, Holdeny R (2014) Simple mechanisms and preferences for honesty. Games Econ Behav 83:284–290CrossRef Kartik N, Tercieux O, Holdeny R (2014) Simple mechanisms and preferences for honesty. Games Econ Behav 83:284–290CrossRef
go back to reference Krishna V, Morgan J (2001) Asymmetric information and legislative rules: some amendments. Am Polit Sci Rev 95(2):435–452CrossRef Krishna V, Morgan J (2001) Asymmetric information and legislative rules: some amendments. Am Polit Sci Rev 95(2):435–452CrossRef
go back to reference Lipman BL, Seppi DJ (1995) Robust inference in communication games with partial provability. J Econ Theory 66:370–405CrossRef Lipman BL, Seppi DJ (1995) Robust inference in communication games with partial provability. J Econ Theory 66:370–405CrossRef
go back to reference Mathis J (2011) Deliberation with evidence. Am Polit Sci Rev 105(3):516–529CrossRef Mathis J (2011) Deliberation with evidence. Am Polit Sci Rev 105(3):516–529CrossRef
go back to reference Milgrom P, Roberts J (1986) Relying on the information of interested parties. Rand J Econ 17:18–32CrossRef Milgrom P, Roberts J (1986) Relying on the information of interested parties. Rand J Econ 17:18–32CrossRef
go back to reference Mizukami H, Wakayama T (2007) Dominant strategy implementation in economic environments. Games Econ Behav 60:307–325CrossRef Mizukami H, Wakayama T (2007) Dominant strategy implementation in economic environments. Games Econ Behav 60:307–325CrossRef
go back to reference Moulin H (1980) On strategyproofness and Single-peakedness. Public Choice 35(4):437–455CrossRef Moulin H (1980) On strategyproofness and Single-peakedness. Public Choice 35(4):437–455CrossRef
go back to reference Schulte E (2010) Information aggregation and preference heterogeneity in committees. Theory Decis 69:97–118CrossRef Schulte E (2010) Information aggregation and preference heterogeneity in committees. Theory Decis 69:97–118CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Information disclosure with many alternatives
Authors
Salvador Barberà
Antonio Nicolò
Publication date
08-06-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Social Choice and Welfare / Issue 4/2021
Print ISSN: 0176-1714
Electronic ISSN: 1432-217X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-021-01341-y

Other articles of this Issue 4/2021

Social Choice and Welfare 4/2021 Go to the issue