Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2512.21793

Sharing with Frictions: Limited Transfers and Costly Inspections

Abstract

The radio spectrum suitable for commercial wireless services is limited. A portion of the radio spectrum has been reserved for institutions using it for non-commercial purposes such as federal agencies, defense, public safety bodies and scientific institutions. In order to operate efficiently, these incumbents need clean spectrum access. However, commercial users also want access, and granting them access may materially interfere with the existing activity of the incumbents. Conventional market based mechanisms for allocating scarce resources in this context are problematic. Allowing direct monetary transfers to and from public or scientific institutions risks distorting their non-commercial mission. Moreover, often only the incumbent knows the exact value of the interference it experiences, and, likewise, only commercial users can predict accurately the expected monetary outcome from sharing the resource. Thus, our problem is to determine the efficient allocation of resources in the presence of private information without the use of direct monetary transfers. The problem is not unique to spectrum. Other resources that governments hold in trust share the same feature. We propose a novel mechanism design formulation of the problem, characterize the optimal mechanism and describe some of its qualitative properties.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Federico Bobbio, Randall A. Berry, Michael L. Honig, Thanh Nguyen, Vijay G. Subramanian, Rakesh V. Vohra. 2025-12-25. Sharing with Frictions: Limited Transfers and Costly Inspections. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21793

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Measurement of Trustworthiness of the Online Reviews

Online review platforms shape consumer decisions, yet reported ratings and comments may be unreliable when reviewers behave inconsistently. This paper models online reviews as a sequential choice problem and proposes a formal rationality pattern function that links a reviewer's current review to their revealed preference history. Building on a two-way consistency axiom for choices from nested sets, we derive an object-specific support trajectory and an associated degree measure in [0,1] (Average Propensity to Choose a Pattern, APCP) that quantifies review trustworthiness. The measure is designed to support information updating and reduce asymmetric information by discounting reviews that are inconsistent with past behavior. A worked example illustrates how the approach assigns trustworthiness grades to reviews for different objects and how these grades can complement aggregate rating statistics. Finally, a generalized theory has been established.

econ.TH

The Depth and Reach of Exploitation: Contracting with Endogenously Naive Consumers

Consumers can invest resources to understand and avoid their behavioral mistakes, and their incentives to do so depend on the market consequences of remaining naive. We incorporate this feedback between consumers' cognitive states and market outcomes into a general contracting model. Firms face a trade-off between the depth and reach of exploitation: deeper exploitation raises profit from a naive consumer but induces greater cognitive investment, promoting sophistication and shrinking the exploitable consumer base. This trade-off disciplines exploitation and can cause policies that benefit consumers when cognition is fixed to backfire when cognition is endogenous.

econ.TH

Contracting under Misspecification

This paper studies agency problems when both parties worry that the model linking action to output is misspecified. With observable actions, an optimal contract is linear in output, so performance pay arises solely to share misspecification exposure, the slope reflects the parties' relative robustness concerns, and its allocation is Pareto efficient. With hidden actions, this sharing rule survives and incentives add a nonlinear correction. Misspecification concerns can polarize effort by making intermediate actions impossible to implement. Moreover, ambiguity across competing models has asymmetric effects: uncertainty about desired actions raises the principal's payoff, whereas uncertainty about deviations can lower it.

econ.TH