Fair Division Of Indivisible Items
AbstractThis paper analyzes criteria of fair division of a set of indivisible items among people whose revealed preferences are limited to rankings of the items and for whom no side payments are allowed. The criteria include refinements of Pareto optimality and envy-freeness as well as dominance-freeness, evenness of shares, and two criteria based on equally-spaced surrogate utilities, referred to as maxsum and equimax. Maxsum maximizes a measure of aggregate utility or welfare, whereas equimax lexicographically maximizes persons' utilities from smallest to largest. The paper analyzes conflicts among the criteria along with possibilities and pitfalls of achieving fair division in a variety of circumstances.
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.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Theory and Decision.
Volume (Year): 55 (2003)
Issue (Month): 2 (09)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100341
Other versions of this item:
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Steven Brams & D. Kilgour & Christian Klamler, 2012.
"The undercut procedure: an algorithm for the envy-free division of indivisible items,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 615-631, July.
- Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc & Klamler, Christian, 2009. "The undercut procedure: an algorithm for the envy-free division of indivisible items," MPRA Paper 12774, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Nicolò, Antonio & Yu, Yan, 2008.
"Strategic divide and choose,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 268-289, September.
- Brams,S.L. & Kaplan,T.R., 2002.
"Dividing the indivisible : procedures for allocating cabinet ministries to political parties in a parliamentary system,"
340, Bielefeld University, Center for Mathematical Economics.
- Steven J. Brams & Todd R. Kaplan, 2002. "Dividing the Indivisible: Procedures for Allocating Cabinet Ministries to Political Parties in a Parliamentary System," Discussion Papers 0202, Exeter University, Department of Economics.
- Brams, S.J. & Kaplan, T.R., 2002. "Dividing the Indivisible: Procedures for Allocating Cabinet Ministries to Political Parties in a Parliamentary System," Working Papers 02-06, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Eve Ramaekers, 2013.
"Fair allocation of indivisible goods: the two-agent case,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 359-380, July.
- RAMAEKERS, Eve, . "Fair allocation of indivisible goods: the two-agent case," CORE Discussion Papers RP -2483, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Dall'Aglio, Marco & Mosca, Raffaele, 2007. "How to allocate hard candies fairly," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 218-237, December.
- Eric Budish & Estelle Cantillon, 2012.
"The Multi-unit Assignment Problem: Theory and Evidence from Course Allocation at Harvard,"
ULB Institutional Repository
2013/99376, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Eric Budish & Estelle Cantillon, 2012. "The Multi-unit Assignment Problem: Theory and Evidence from Course Allocation at Harvard," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2237-71, August.
- Budish, Eric & Cantillon, Estelle, 2010. "The Multi-unit Assignment Problem: Theory and Evidence from Course Allocation at Harvard," CEPR Discussion Papers 7641, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.