The two-agent claims-truncated proportional rule has no consistent extension: A constructive proof
We 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).
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
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.
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.
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.:
- Oscar Volij & Nir Dagan, 1997.
"Bilateral Comparisons and Consistent Fair Division Rules in the Context of Bankruptcy Problems,"
International Journal of Game Theory,
Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 26(1), pages 11-25.
- Dagan, N. & Volij, O.C., 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.
- Volij, Oscar & Dagan, Nir, 1997. "Bilateral Comparisons and Consistent Fair Division Rules in the Context of Bankruptcy Problems," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5141, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- 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.
- 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).
- Hervé Moulin, 2000. "Priority Rules and Other Asymmetric Rationing Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 643-684, May.
- 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.
- Toru Hokari & William Thomson, 2003. "Claims problems and weighted generalizations of the Talmud rule," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 21(2), pages 241-261, 03.
- O'Neill, Barry, 1982. "A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 345-371, June. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)