TY - JOUR
T1 - Coordinating charitable donations with Leontief preferences
AU - Brandt, Felix
AU - Greger, Matthias
AU - Segal-Halevi, Erel
AU - Suksompong, Warut
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s).
PY - 2025/12
Y1 - 2025/12
N2 - We consider the problem of funding public goods that are complementary in nature. Examples include charities handling different needs (e.g., protecting animals vs. providing healthcare), charitable donations to different individuals, or municipal units handling different issues (e.g., security vs. transportation). We model these complementarities by assuming Leontief preferences; that is, each donor seeks to maximize an individually weighted minimum of all contributions across the charities. Decentralized funding may be inefficient due to a lack of coordination among the donors; centralized funding may be undesirable as it ignores the preferences of individual donors. We present a mechanism that combines the advantages of both methods. The mechanism efficiently distributes each donor's contribution so that no subset of donors has an incentive to redistribute their donations. Moreover, it is group-strategyproof, satisfies desirable monotonicity properties, maximizes Nash welfare, returns a unique Lindahl equilibrium, and can be implemented via natural best-response spending dynamics.
AB - We consider the problem of funding public goods that are complementary in nature. Examples include charities handling different needs (e.g., protecting animals vs. providing healthcare), charitable donations to different individuals, or municipal units handling different issues (e.g., security vs. transportation). We model these complementarities by assuming Leontief preferences; that is, each donor seeks to maximize an individually weighted minimum of all contributions across the charities. Decentralized funding may be inefficient due to a lack of coordination among the donors; centralized funding may be undesirable as it ignores the preferences of individual donors. We present a mechanism that combines the advantages of both methods. The mechanism efficiently distributes each donor's contribution so that no subset of donors has an incentive to redistribute their donations. Moreover, it is group-strategyproof, satisfies desirable monotonicity properties, maximizes Nash welfare, returns a unique Lindahl equilibrium, and can be implemented via natural best-response spending dynamics.
KW - Collective decision making
KW - Leontief preferences
KW - Mechanism design
KW - Public good markets
KW - Spending dynamics
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105023474594
U2 - 10.1016/j.jet.2025.106096
DO - 10.1016/j.jet.2025.106096
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:105023474594
SN - 0022-0531
VL - 230
JO - Journal of Economic Theory
JF - Journal of Economic Theory
M1 - 106096
ER -