IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Secured lower bound, composition up, and minimal rights first for bankruptcy problems

  • Yeh, Chun-Hsien

We study the implications of secured lower bound when imposed together with minimal rights first or composition up for the resolution of conflicting claims. We show that the Talmud rule is the only rule satisfying secured lower bound, minimal rights first, and consistency. In addition, we show that if minimal rights first and consistency in the above characterization were replaced with composition up and null claims consistency, respectively, the constrained equal awards rule stands out as the only acceptable rule.

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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VBY-4R5F1WM-D/1/88a2f4827b255722f769b288243d2b10
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Mathematical Economics.

Volume (Year): 44 (2008)
Issue (Month): 9-10 (September)
Pages: 925-932

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:mateco:v:44:y:2008:i:9-10:p:925-932
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmateco

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. 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).
  2. Juan Moreno-Ternero, 2006. "Composition, Securement, and Concede-and-divide," Spanish Economic Review, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 227-237, September.
  3. Juan Moreno-Ternero & Antonio Villar, 2006. "New characterizations of a classical bankruptcy rule," Review of Economic Design, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 73-84, August.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Hervé Moulin, 2000. "Priority Rules and Other Asymmetric Rationing Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 643-684, May.
  7. Nir Dagan, 1996. "New Characterizations of Old Bankruptcy Rules," Economic theory and game theory 002, Nir Dagan.
  8. 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.
  9. Young, H. P., 1988. "Distributive justice in taxation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 321-335, April.
  10. 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.
  11. Youngsub Chun, 1999. "Equivalence of Axioms for Bankruptcy Problems," Working Paper Series no1, Institute of Economic Research, Seoul National University.
  12. Youngsub Chun, 1999. "Equivalence of axioms for bankruptcy problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 511-520.
  13. Diego Dominguez, 2007. "Lower bounds and recursive methods for the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims," Working Papers 0705, Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM.
  14. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:mateco:v:44:y:2008:i:9-10:p:925-932. 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: (Zhang, Lei)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.