0
$\begingroup$

Consider a finite number of bidders, each bidding for a single indivisible object, with private independent values from some probability distribution. There are 2 intuitive notions of (ex-post) efficiency: Pareto efficiency and the notion of efficiency that the bidder with the highest value receives the object.

Are the two ever equivalent? I can see that the second notion implies Pareto efficiency, but not the converse.

| improve this question | |
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

If bidders have quasilinear preferences and monetary transfers are possible, then the two notions are equivalent: If $x$ is an allocation of the object and $t$ is a vector of monetary transfers with a balanced budget (so the sum of all transfers is 0), then the pair $(x,t)$ is Pareto efficient if and only if $x$ is the utilitarian allocation (object goes to the bidder with the highest valuation).

If monetary transfers are not possible, every allocation of the object to some bidder is Pareto efficient.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting, do notions of efficiency for auctions ever consider the seller's utility as well as buyers? (I don't mean revenue maximisation, I mean buyer's and seller's combined utility). In this conversation, they have been referring only to buyers. $\endgroup$ – Student May 12 at 9:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Student: Yes, but mostly in a trivial sense where the seller is assumed to have a zero valuation of the object. $\endgroup$ – VARulle May 12 at 13:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.