The revelation principle and mechanism design

2021 ◽  
pp. 473-490
Author(s):  
Harald Wiese
Author(s):  
Werner Güth

Mechanism design is the game theoretic jargon for institutional design and the even older tradition (in German) of ‘Ordnungspolitik’ (institutional design policy). When implementing institutions or mechanisms (or simply rules of conduct) such regulation should usually be codified by complementing the law appropriately. This article first derives and discusses legal rules as traditionally justified and implemented legally. This is then confronted with game theoretic mechanism design, relying on Dominance Solvability or the Revelation Principle. It is argued that the Revelation Principle is very useful for welfaristic or, more generally, consequentialistic explorations of what is attainable but offers no practical basis for legal mechanism design due to its unrealistic common knowledge restrictions.


Author(s):  
David M. Kreps

This chapter evaluates a more general attack on optimal contract and mechanism design stressing cases of adverse selection, which makes use of the revelation principle. One should be clear about the uses to which the revelation principle is put. It can be thought of as a statement about how actually to implement contracts. But it may be better to use it with greater circumspection as a tool of analysis for finding the limits of what outcomes can be implemented, without reference to how best to implement a particular outcome. In some contexts of direct revelation, there will be situations ex post where the party in the role of the government knows that it can obtain further gains from trade from one or more of the parties who participated. Meanwhile, in many applications of the revelation principle, the party in the role of mechanism designer must be able to commit credibly to no subsequent (re)negotiation once it learns the types of the parties with which it is dealing.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35
Author(s):  
Andrew Kephart ◽  
Vincent Conitzer

The revelation principle is a key tool in mechanism design. It allows the designer to restrict attention to truthful mechanisms, greatly facilitating analysis. This is also borne out algorithmically, allowing certain computational problems in mechanism design to be solved in polynomial time. Unfortunately, when not every type can misreport every other type (the partial verification model) or—more generally—misreporting can be costly, the revelation principle can fail to hold. This also leads to NP-hardness results. The primary contribution of this article consists of characterizations of conditions under which the revelation principle still holds when reporting can be costly. (These are generalizations of conditions given earlier for the partial verification case [11, 21].) Furthermore, our results extend to cases where, instead of reporting types directly, agents send signals that do not directly correspond to types. In this case, we obtain conditions for when the mechanism designer can restrict attention to a given (but arbitrary) mapping from types to signals without loss of generality.


2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 224-224
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Auletta ◽  
Paolo Penna ◽  
Giuseppe Persiano ◽  
Carmine Ventre

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aranyak Mehta
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 393
Author(s):  
Olga V. Egorova ◽  
Gennady A. Timofeev ◽  
Marina V. Samoilova

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document