Arbeitspapier
When queueing is better than push and shove
We address the scheduling problem of reordering an existing queue into its efficient order through trade. To that end, we consider individually rational and balanced budget direct and indirect mechanisms. We show that this class of mechanisms allows us to form efficient queues provided that existing property rights for the service are small enough to enable trade between the agents. In particular, we show on the one hand that no queue under a fully deterministic service schedule such as first-come, first-serve can be dissolved efficiently and meet our requirements. If, on the other hand, the alternative is service anarchy (ie. a random queue), every existing queue can be transformed into an efficient order.
- Language
-
Englisch
- Bibliographic citation
-
Series: SFB/TR 15 Discussion Paper ; No. 144
- Classification
-
Wirtschaft
Noncooperative Games
Auctions
Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
- Subject
-
Scheduling
Queueing
Mechanism design
- Event
-
Geistige Schöpfung
- (who)
-
Gershkov, Alex
Schweinzer, Paul
- Event
-
Veröffentlichung
- (who)
-
Sonderforschungsbereich/Transregio 15 - Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems (GESY)
- (where)
-
München
- (when)
-
2006
- DOI
-
doi:10.5282/ubm/epub.13407
- Handle
- URN
-
urn:nbn:de:bvb:19-epub-13407-0
- Last update
-
10.03.2025, 11:43 AM CET
Data provider
ZBW - Deutsche Zentralbibliothek für Wirtschaftswissenschaften - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft. If you have any questions about the object, please contact the data provider.
Object type
- Arbeitspapier
Associated
- Gershkov, Alex
- Schweinzer, Paul
- Sonderforschungsbereich/Transregio 15 - Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems (GESY)
Time of origin
- 2006
Other Objects (12)
When Queueing is Better than Push and Shove
A push for better RDM
When being wasteful appears better than feeling wasteful
Electoral Competition when Candidates are Better Informed than Voters
When standards have better distributional consequences than carbon taxes
Conjunctive explanations: when are two explanations better than one?
When the plus strategy performs better than the comma strategy - and when not
Discretion rather than rules? When is discretionary policy-making better than the timeless perspective?
Better than chocolate
Better than chocolate
Better than Europe
When Do Groups Perform Better than Individuals? A Company Takeover Experiment
When Queueing is Better than Push and Shove
A push for better RDM
When being wasteful appears better than feeling wasteful
Electoral Competition when Candidates are Better Informed than Voters
When standards have better distributional consequences than carbon taxes
Conjunctive explanations: when are two explanations better than one?
When the plus strategy performs better than the comma strategy - and when not
Discretion rather than rules? When is discretionary policy-making better than the timeless perspective?
Better than chocolate
Better than chocolate
Better than Europe
When Do Groups Perform Better than Individuals? A Company Takeover Experiment
When Queueing is Better than Push and Shove
A push for better RDM
When being wasteful appears better than feeling wasteful
Electoral Competition when Candidates are Better Informed than Voters
When standards have better distributional consequences than carbon taxes
Conjunctive explanations: when are two explanations better than one?
When the plus strategy performs better than the comma strategy - and when not
Discretion rather than rules? When is discretionary policy-making better than the timeless perspective?
Better than chocolate
Better than chocolate
Better than Europe