The two-agent claims-truncated proportional rule has no consistent extension: A constructive proof
AbstractWe consider the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims. A rule to solve such problems is consistent if the choice it makes for each problem is always in agreement with the choice it makes for each "reduced problem" obtained by imagining that some claimants leave with their awards and reassessing the situation a that point. It says that each remaining claimant should receive what he received initially. We consider the version of the proportional rule that selects for each problem, the awards vector that is proportional to the vector of claims truncated at the amount to divide. We illustrate a geometric technique developed by Thomson (2001) by showing that the two-claimant truncated proportional rule has no consistent extension to general populations (Dagan and Volij, 1997).
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Economics Letters.
Volume (Year): 98 (2008)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet
Other versions of this item:
- William Thomson, 2006. "The Two-Agent Claims-Truncated Proportional Rule Has No Consistent Extension: A Constructive Proof," RCER Working Papers 529, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- C79 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Other
- D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
- D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Oscar Volij & Nir Dagan, 1997.
"Bilateral Comparisons and Consistent Fair Division Rules in the Context of Bankruptcy Problems,"
International Journal of Game Theory,
Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 11-25.
- Volij, Oscar & Dagan, Nir, 1997. "Bilateral Comparisons and Consistent Fair Division Rules in the Context of Bankruptcy Problems," Staff General Research Papers 5141, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Dagan, N. & Volij, O., 1994. "Bilateral Comparisons and Consistent Fair Division Rules in the Context of Bankruptcy Problems," Discussion Paper 1994-23, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Nir Dagan & Oscar Volij, 1997. "Bilateral Comparisons and Consistent Fair Division Rules in the Context of Bankruptcy Problems," Economic theory and game theory 004, Nir Dagan.
- Herrero, Carmen & Villar, Antonio, 2001.
"The three musketeers: four classical solutions to bankruptcy problems,"
Mathematical Social Sciences,
Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 307-328, November.
- Antonio Villar Notario & Carmen Herrero Blanco, 2000. "The Three Musketeers: Four Classical Solutions To Bankruptcy Problems," Working Papers. Serie AD 2000-23, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
- Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
- O'Neill, Barry, 1982. "A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 345-371, June.
- Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
- Toru Hokari & William Thomson, 2003. "Claims problems and weighted generalizations of the Talmud rule," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 241-261, 03.
- Hervé Moulin, 2000. "Priority Rules and Other Asymmetric Rationing Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 643-684, May.
- Maurice Koster, 2012. "Consistent cost sharing," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 1-28, February.
- William Thomson, 2008.
"Two families of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 667-692, December.
- William Thomson, 2007. "Two families of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," RCER Working Papers 535, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.