Dividing justly in Bargaining Problems with Claims
AbstractTheoretical research on claims problems has concentrated on normative properties and axiomatizations of solution concepts. We complement these analyses by empirical evidence on the predictability of three classical solution concepts in a bankruptcy problem. We examine both people's impartial normative evaluations as well as their actual negotiation behavior in a bargaining with claims environment. We measure people's judgments on the normative attractiveness of solution concepts with the help of a survey and also observe actual agreements in a bargaining experiment with real money at stake. We find that the proportional solution is the normatively most attractive rule, whereas actual negotiation agreements are closest to the 'constrained equal award' solution.
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 InfoPaper provided by Tinbergen Institute in its series Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers with number 04-044/1.
Date of creation: 23 Apr 2004
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tinbergen.nl
Bankruptcy problems with claims; proportional rule; equal-awards rule; equal-losses rule; fairness; laboratory experiment; vignette;
Other versions of this item:
- Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2006. "Dividing Justly in Bargaining Problems with Claims," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 571-594, December.
- D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
- C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
- C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2004-05-26 (All new papers)
- NEP-EXP-2004-05-26 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-MIC-2004-05-26 (Microeconomics)
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.:
- Nir Dagan & Roberto Serrano & Oscar Volij, 1997.
"A Noncooperative View of Consistent Bankruptcy Rules,"
Economic theory and game theory
005, Nir Dagan.
- Dagan, Nir & Serrano, Roberto & Volij, Oscar, 1997. "A Noncooperative View of Consistent Bankruptcy Rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 55-72, January.
- Volij, Oscar & Dagan, Nir & Serrano, Roberto, 1997. "A Non-Cooperative View of Consistent Bankruptcy Rules," Staff General Research Papers 5130, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Dagan, N. & Serrano, R. & Volij, O., 1994. "A Non-Cooperative View of Consistent Bankruptcy Rules," Discussion Paper 1994-11, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- 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).
- 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.
- Hervé Moulin, 2000. "Priority Rules and Other Asymmetric Rationing Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 643-684, May.
- O'Neill, Barry, 1982. "A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 345-371, June.
- Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2005.
"Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims,"
INFORMS, vol. 51(2), pages 249-263, February.
- Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, 2003. "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-055/1, Tinbergen Institute.
- Sheryl Ball & Catherine Eckel & Philip J. Grossman & William Zame, 2001. "Status In Markets," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 116(1), pages 161-188, February.
- Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, .
"Moral Property Rights in Bargaining,"
IEW - Working Papers
113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Steven R. Beckman & Buhong Zheng & John P. Formby & W. James Smith, 2002. "Envy, malice and Pareto efficiency: An experimental examination," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 349-367.
- Nir Dagan, 1996.
"New Characterizations of Old Bankruptcy Rules,"
Economic theory and game theory
002, Nir Dagan.
- Chun, Y. & Thomson, W., 1989.
"Bargaining Problems With Claims,"
RCER Working Papers
189, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Roth, Alvin E & Murnighan, J Keith & Schoumaker, Francoise, 1988. "The Deadline Effect in Bargaining: Some Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(4), pages 806-23, September.
- Babcock, Linda, et al, 1995. "Biased Judgments of Fairness in Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1337-43, December.
- Hoffman Elizabeth & McCabe Kevin & Shachat Keith & Smith Vernon, 1994. "Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 346-380, November.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Antoine Maartens (+31 626 - 160 892)).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.