Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: an update

Contents:

Author Info

  • William Thomson

    (University of Rochester)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    A group of agents have claims on a resource, but there is not enough of it to honor all of the claims. How should it be divided? A group of agents decide to undertake a public project that they can jointly afford. How much should each of them contribute? This essay is an update of Thomson (2003), a survey of the literature devoted to the study of such problems.

    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_578.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 578.

    as in new window
    Length: 64 pages
    Date of creation: Aug 2013
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:roc:rocher:578

    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; constrained equal awards rule; constrained equal losses rule; proportional rule; axiomatic approach; game-theoretic approach;

    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. Rodica Branzei & Marco Dall'aglio, 2009. "Allocation rules incorporating interval uncertainty," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Technology, Institute of Organization and Management, vol. 2, pages 19-28.
    2. Hervé Moulin, 2000. "Priority Rules and Other Asymmetric Rationing Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 643-684, May.
    3. Ignacio García-Jurado & Julio González-Díaz & Antonio Villar, 2006. "A Non-cooperative Approach to Bankruptcy Problems," Spanish Economic Review, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 189-197, September.
    4. Hart, Sergiu & Mas-Colell, Andreu, 1989. "Potential, Value, and Consistency," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 589-614, May.
    5. Chun, Y. & Thomson, W., 1989. "Bargaining Problems With Claims," RCER Working Papers 189, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    6. Quant, M., 2006. "Interactive Behavior in Conflict Situations," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-188814, Tilburg University.
    7. Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Roemer, John E., 2012. "A common ground for resource and welfare egalitarianism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 832-841.
    8. 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.
    9. Chun-Hsien Yeh, 2006. "Protective Properties and the Constrained Equal Awards Rule for Claims Problems: A Note," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 221-230, October.
    10. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    11. Diego Dominguez, 2007. "Lower bounds and recursive methods for the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims," Working Papers 0705, Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM.
    12. Kıbrıs, Özgür & Kıbrıs, Arzu, 2013. "On the investment implications of bankruptcy laws," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 85-99.
    13. Kristof Bosmans & Erik Schokkaert, 2009. "Equality preference in the claims problem: a questionnaire study of cuts in earnings and pensions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 533-557, November.
    14. Diego Dominguez & William Thomson, 2006. "A new solution to the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 283-307, 06.
    15. Brânzei, R. & Dimitrov, D.A. & Pickl, S. & Tijs, S.H., 2002. "How to Cope with Division Problems under Interval Uncertainty of Claims?," Discussion Paper 2002-96, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    16. Herrero & C., 2004. "On the Adjudication of Conflicting Claims: An Experimental Study," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 166, Econometric Society.
    17. José M. Jiménez Gómez & María del Carmen Marco, 2008. "A New Approach for Bounding Awards in Bankruptcy Problems," Working Papers. Serie AD 2008-07, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    18. Bergantinos, Gustavo & Lorenzo, Leticia, 2008. "The equal award principle in problems with constraints and claims," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 188(1), pages 224-239, July.
    19. Gonzalez-Alcon, C. & Borm, P.E.M. & Hendrickx, R.L.P., 2003. "A Composite Run-to-the-Bank Rule for Multi-Issue Allocation Situations," Discussion Paper 2003-59, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    20. Chambers, Christopher P. & Thomson, William, 2002. "Group order preservation and the proportional rule for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 235-252, December.
    21. Atlamaz, Murat & Berden, Caroline & Peters, Hans & Vermeulen, Dries, 2011. "Non-cooperative solutions for estate division problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 39-51, September.
    22. Arin, Javier & Inarra, Elena, 1998. "A Characterization of the Nucleolus for Convex Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 12-24, April.
    23. 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.
    24. Kaminski, Marek M., 2006. "Parametric rationing methods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 115-133, January.
    25. Lars Peter Østerdal & Jens Leth Hougaard, 2004. "Inequality Preserving Rationing," Discussion Papers 04-23, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    26. Habis, Helga & Herings, P. Jean-Jacques, 2011. "Transferable utility games with uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(5), pages 2126-2139, September.
    27. Youngsub Chun & Junghoon Lee, 2007. "On the convergence of the random arrival rule in large claims problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 259-273, October.
    28. Bergantinos, Gustavo & Vidal-Puga, Juan J., 2006. "Additive rules in discrete allocation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(3), pages 971-978, August.
    29. HOUGAARD, Jens Leth & MORENO-TERNERO, Juan D. & OSTERDAL, Lars Peter, . "A unifying framework for the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims," CORE Discussion Papers RP -2399, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    30. Giménez-Gómez, José Manuel & Peris, Josep E., 2012. "A Proportional Approach to Bankruptcy Problems with a guaranteed minimum," Working Papers 2072/182645, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    31. Özgür Kıbrıs, 2012. "A revealed preference analysis of solutions to simple allocation problems," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(4), pages 509-523, April.
    32. Dinko Dimitrov & Stef Tijs & Rodica Branzei, 2003. "Shapley-like values for interval bankruptcy games," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(9), pages 1-8.
    33. 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.
    34. Juan de Dios Moreno Ternero & Antonio Villar Notario, 2003. "The Talmud Rule And The Securement Of Agents? Awards," Working Papers. Serie AD 2003-05, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    35. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2008:i:56:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    36. Ju, Biung-Ghi & Miyagawa, Eiichi & Sakai, Toyotaka, 2007. "Non-manipulable division rules in claim problems and generalizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 1-26, January.
    37. Kristof Bosmans & Luc Lauwers, 2011. "Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 791-807, November.
    38. Gustavo Bergantiños & Juan Vidal-Puga, 2003. "Additive rules in bankruptcy problems and other related problems," Game Theory and Information 0304001, EconWPA.
    39. Lefebvre, Marianne, 2013. "Can Rationing Rules for Common Resources Impact Self-insurance Decisions?," Strategic Behavior and the Environment, now publishers, vol. 3(3), pages 185-222, March.
    40. Rodica Branzei & Sirma Zeynep Alparslan Gok, 2008. "Bankruptcy problems with interval uncertainty," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(56), pages 1-10.
    41. Chang, Chih & Hu, Cheng-Cheng, 2008. "A non-cooperative interpretation of the f-just rules of bankruptcy problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 133-144, May.
    42. Orshan, Gooni & Zarzuelo, Jose M., 2000. "The Bilateral Consistent Prekernel for NTU Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 67-84, July.
    43. Dagan, Nir & Volij, Oscar, 1993. "The bankruptcy problem: a cooperative bargaining approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 287-297, November.
    44. Quant, Marieke & Borm, Peter & Hendrickx, Ruud & Zwikker, Peter, 2006. "Compromise solutions based on bankruptcy," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 247-256, May.
    45. Kasajima, Yoichi & Velez, Rodrigo A., 2010. "Non-proportional inequality preservation in gains and losses," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1079-1092, November.
    46. Nir Dagan, 1996. "New characterizations of old bankruptcy rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 51-59, January.
    47. Ansink, Erik, 2011. "The Arctic scramble: Introducing claims in a contest model," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 693-707.
    48. T. Marchant, 2004. "Rationing : dynamic considerations, equivalent sacrifice and links between the two approaches," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 04/244, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    49. Quant, M. & Borm, P.E.M. & Maaten, R., 2005. "A Concede-and-Divide Rule for Bankruptcy Problems," Discussion Paper 2005-20, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    50. Yeh, Chun-Hsien, 2004. "Sustainability, exemption, and the constrained equal awards rule: a note," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 103-110, January.
    51. Calleja, Pedro & Borm, Peter & Hendrickx, Ruud, 2005. "Multi-issue allocation situations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 730-747, August.
    52. Marco Mariotti & Antonio Villar, 2005. "The Nash rationing problem," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 367-377, 09.
    53. Endre Bjørndal & Kurt Jörnsten, 2010. "Flow sharing and bankruptcy games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 11-28, March.
    54. Pulido, M. & Borm, P.E.M. & Hendrickx, R.L.P. & Llorca, N. & Sánchez-Soriano, J., 2008. "Compromise solutions for bankruptcy situations with references," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-194180, Tilburg University.
    55. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, 2003. "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-055/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    56. Albizuri, M.J. & Leroux, J. & Zarzuelo, J.M., 2010. "Updating claims in bankruptcy problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 144-148, September.
    57. José Alcalde & José Angel Silva & María del Carmen Marco, 2002. "Bankruptcy Games And The Ibn Ezra'S Proposal," Working Papers. Serie AD 2002-28, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    58. Itai Ashlagi & Emin Karagozoglu & Bettina Klaus, 2008. "A Noncooperative Support for Equal Division in Estate Division Problems," Harvard Business School Working Papers 09-069, Harvard Business School.
    59. 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).
    60. Luis Corchón & Carmen Herrero Blanco, 1995. "A Decent Proposal," Working Papers. Serie AD 1995-25, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    61. Voorneveld, M. & Tijs, S.H. & Grahn, S., 2000. "Monotonic Allocation Schemes in Clan Games," Discussion Paper 2000-80, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    62. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2003:i:9:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    63. Tamás Fleiner & Balázs Sziklai, 2012. "The Nucleolus Of The Bankruptcy Problem By Hydraulic Rationing," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(01), pages 1250007-1-1.
    64. Chambers, Christopher P., 2006. "Asymmetric rules for claims problems without homogeneity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 241-260, February.
    65. Rodica Branzei & Giulio Ferrari & Vito Fragnelli & Stef Tijs, 2008. "A Flow Approach to Bankruptcy Problems," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 2(2), pages 146-153, September.
    66. HERRERO, Carmen & MARTINEZ, Ricardo, 2006. "Balanced allocation methods for claims problems with indivisibilities," CORE Discussion Papers 2006066, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    67. Gustavo Bergantiños & Luciano Méndez-Naya, 2001. "Additivity in bankruptcy problems and in allocation problems," Spanish Economic Review, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 223-229.
    68. Robert Aumann, 2010. "Some non-superadditive games, and their Shapley values, in the Talmud," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 3-10, March.
    69. Marieke Quant & Peter Borm, 2011. "Random conjugates of bankruptcy rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 249-266, February.
    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. Thomson, William, 2013. "A characterization of a family of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 157-168.
    2. Giménez Gómez, José M. (José Manuel) & Teixidó Figueras, Jordi Josep & Vilella Bach, Misericòrdia, 2014. "The global carbon budget:a conflicting claims problem," Working Papers 2072/237597, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.

    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:578. 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.