Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Convergence under Replication of Rules to Adjudicate Conflicting Claims

Contents:

Author Info

  • Youngsub Chun

    ()
    (Seoul National University)

  • William Thomson

    ()
    (University of Rochester)

Abstract

We study the behavior of rules for the adjudication of con°icting claims when there are a large number of claimants with small claims. We model such situations by replicating some basic problem. We show that under replication, the random arrival rule (O'Neill, 1982) behaves like the proportional rule, the rule that is the most often recommended in this context. Also, under replication, the minimal overlap rule (O'Neill, 1982) behaves like the constrained equal losses rule, the rule that selects a division at which all claimants experience equal losses subject to no-one receiving a negative amount.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://rcer.econ.rochester.edu/RCERPAPERS/rcer_512.pdf
File Function: full text
Download Restriction: None

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER) in its series RCER Working Papers with number 512.

as in new window
Length: 16 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:roc:rocher:512

Contact details of provider:
Postal: University of Rochester, Center for Economic Research, Department of Economics, Harkness 231 Rochester, New York 14627 U.S.A.

Related research

Keywords: Claims problems; Replication; Random arrival rule; Proportional rule; Minimal overlap rule; Constrained equal losses rule.;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. O'Neill, Barry, 1982. "A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 345-371, June.
  4. Thomson, William, 1988. "A study of choice correspondences in economies with a variable number of agents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 237-254, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. 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).
  2. BOSMANS, Kristof & SCHOKKAERT, Erik, 2007. "Equality preference in the claims problem: A questionnaire study of cuts in earnings and pensions," CORE Discussion Papers 2007030, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  3. Thomson, William & Yeh, Chun-Hsien, 2008. "Operators for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 177-198, November.
  4. Alcalde, Jose & Marco-Gil, María del Carmen & Silva, José A., 2010. "Merging and Going Bankrupt: A Neutral Solution," MPRA Paper 28339, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  5. LUTTENS, Roland Iwan, 2010. "Lower bounds rule!," CORE Discussion Papers 2010069, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  6. Diego Dominguez & William Thomson, 2004. "A New Solution to the Problem of Adjudicating Conflicting Claims," RCER Working Papers 511, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
  7. José Alcalde & María Marco & José Silva, 2008. "The minimal overlap rule revisited," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 109-128, June.
  8. Kristof Bosmans & Luc Lauwers, 2007. "Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers ces0705, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën.
  9. William Thomson, 2007. "Lorenz rankings of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," RCER Working Papers 538, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:roc:rocher:512. See general 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: (Gabriel Mihalache).

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.