  According to the proportional allocation mechanism from the network
optimization literature, users compete for a divisible resource -- such as
bandwidth -- by submitting bids. The mechanism allocates to each user a
fraction of the resource that is proportional to her bid and collects an amount
equal to her bid as payment. Since users act as utility-maximizers, this
naturally defines a proportional allocation game. Recently, Syrgkanis and
Tardos (STOC 2013) quantified the inefficiency of equilibria in this game with
respect to the social welfare and presented a lower bound of 26.8% on the price
of anarchy over coarse-correlated and Bayes-Nash equilibria in the full and
incomplete information settings, respectively. In this paper, we improve this
bound to 50% over both equilibrium concepts. Our analysis is simpler and,
furthermore, we argue that it cannot be improved by arguments that do not take
the equilibrium structure into account. We also extend it to settings with
budget constraints where we show the first constant bound (between 36% and 50%)
on the price of anarchy of the corresponding game with respect to an effective
welfare benchmark that takes budgets into account.
