IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v113y2021icp136-148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Families of sequential priority rules and random arrival rules with withdrawal limits

Author

Listed:
  • Sanchez-Soriano, Joaquin

Abstract

This paper deals with extensions of the family of sequential priority rules and the random arrival rule for bankruptcy problems when withdrawal limits are fixed by an arbitrator. We assume two approaches to limit withdrawals. The first is based on the principle that agents can only obtain at most a fixed part of the endowment each time they qualify for an award, and the second that agents can only receive at most a proportion of their claims each time they are attended. For each approach we introduce two pairs of families, each consisting of a sequential priority rule-like family and a random arrival rule-like family. Applying the first approach, we show that the constrained equal awards rule belongs to each of the families. In the second, we prove the same for the proportional rule. We study in detail one pair of families for each approach, and the others are examined in relation to them.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanchez-Soriano, Joaquin, 2021. "Families of sequential priority rules and random arrival rules with withdrawal limits," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 136-148.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:113:y:2021:i:c:p:136-148
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2021.06.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165489621000688
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2021.06.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chun, Youngsub, 1988. "The proportional solution for rights problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 231-246, June.
    2. Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Villar, Antonio, 2004. "The Talmud rule and the securement of agents' awards," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 245-257, March.
    3. Kristof Bosmans & Luc Lauwers, 2011. "Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(4), pages 791-807, November.
    4. H. Peyton Young, 1987. "On Dividing an Amount According to Individual Claims or Liabilities," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 398-414, August.
    5. Moulin, Herve, 2002. "Axiomatic cost and surplus sharing," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 289-357, Elsevier.
    6. Chun, Youngsub & Thomson, William, 2005. "Convergence under replication of rules to adjudicate conflicting claims," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 129-142, February.
    7. Juan D Moreno-Ternero & John E Roemer, 2006. "Impartiality, Priority, and Solidarity in the Theory of Justice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(5), pages 1419-1427, September.
    8. Thierry Marchant, 2008. "Scale invariance and similar invariance conditions for bankruptcy problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(4), pages 709-710, December.
    9. William Thomson, 2008. "Two families of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(4), pages 667-692, December.
    10. William Thomson, 2011. "Consistency and its converse: an introduction," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 15(4), pages 257-291, December.
    11. Hu, Cheng-Cheng & Tsay, Min-Hung & Yeh, Chun-Hsien, 2012. "Axiomatic and strategic justifications for the constrained equal benefits rule in the airport problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 185-197.
    12. M. Pulido & P. Borm & R. Hendrickx & N. Llorca & J. Sánchez-Soriano, 2008. "Compromise solutions for bankruptcy situations with references," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 133-141, February.
    13. Juan Moreno-Ternero & Antonio Villar, 2006. "The TAL-Family of Rules for Bankruptcy Problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(2), pages 231-249, October.
    14. René Brink & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2017. "The reverse TAL-family of rules for bankruptcy problems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 254(1), pages 449-465, July.
    15. 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.
    16. Juan D. Moreno‐Ternero & Antonio Villar, 2006. "On the Relative Equitability of a Family of Taxation Rules," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 8(2), pages 283-291, May.
    17. Diego Dominguez, 2013. "Lower bounds and recursive methods for the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 663-678, March.
    18. Herrero, Carmen & Maschler, Michael & Villar, Antonio, 1999. "Individual rights and collective responsibility: the rights-egalitarian solution," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 59-77, January.
    19. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & Jordi Teixidó-Figueras & Cori Vilella, 2016. "The global carbon budget: a conflicting claims problem," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 693-703, June.
    20. Bergantinos, Gustavo & Vidal-Puga, Juan J., 2004. "Additive rules in bankruptcy problems and other related problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 87-101, January.
    21. Diego Dominguez & William Thomson, 2006. "A new solution to the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 28(2), pages 283-307, June.
    22. Thomson, William, 2015. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: An update," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-59.
    23. Kristof Bosmans & Luc Lauwers, 2011. "Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(4), pages 791-807, November.
    24. Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano & Natividad Llorca & Encarnación Algaba, 2016. "Valuing managerial flexibility: An application of real-option theory to steel industry investments," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 26(2), pages 127-145.
    25. Casas-Méndez, Balbina & Fragnelli, Vito & García-Jurado, Ignacio, 2011. "Weighted bankruptcy rules and the museum pass problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(1), pages 161-168, November.
    26. 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.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Gong, Doudou & Dietzenbacher, Bas & Peters, Hans, 2022. "A random arrival rule for NTU-bankruptcy problems," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    2. Jens Gudmundsson & Jens Leth Hougaard & Chiu Yu Ko, 2022. "Sharing sequentially triggered losses: Automatic conflict resolution through smart contracts," IFRO Working Paper 2020/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    3. Qianqian Kong & Hans Peters, 2023. "Sequential claim games," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 45(3), pages 955-975, September.
    4. Rick K. Acosta-Vega & Encarnaci'on Algaba & Joaqu'in S'anchez-Soriano, 2022. "On priority in multi-issue bankruptcy problems with crossed claims," Papers 2205.00450, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomson, William, 2015. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: An update," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-59.
    2. René Brink & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2017. "The reverse TAL-family of rules for bankruptcy problems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 254(1), pages 449-465, July.
    3. Rick K. Acosta & Encarnación Algaba & Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano, 2022. "Multi-issue bankruptcy problems with crossed claims," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 749-772, November.
    4. Long, Yan & Sethuraman, Jay & Xue, Jingyi, 2021. "Equal-quantile rules in resource allocation with uncertain needs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    5. Patrick Harless, 2017. "Endowment additivity and the weighted proportional rules for adjudicating conflicting claims," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(3), pages 755-781, March.
    6. Rick K. Acosta-Vega & Encarnaci'on Algaba & Joaqu'in S'anchez-Soriano, 2022. "On proportionality in multi-issue problems with crossed claims," Papers 2202.09877, arXiv.org.
    7. Arin, J. & Benito-Ostolaza, J. & Inarra, E., 2017. "The reverse Talmud family of rules for bankruptcy Problems: A characterization," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 43-49.
    8. Karol Flores-Szwagrzak & Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2020. "Priority and proportionality in bankruptcy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(4), pages 559-579, April.
    9. María José Solíx-Baltodano & Cori Vilella & José Manuel Giménez-Gómez, 2019. "The Catalan Health Budget: A Conflicting Claims Approach," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 228(1), pages 35-54, March.
    10. van den Brink, René & Funaki, Yukihiko & van der Laan, Gerard, 2013. "Characterization of the Reverse Talmud bankruptcy rule by Exemption and Exclusion properties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 413-417.
    11. Jens Leth Hougaard & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2010. "Baseline Rationing," Discussion Papers 10-16, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    12. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2012. "A unifying framework for the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 107-114.
    13. Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2023. "Additive adjudication of conflicting claims," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(1), pages 93-116, March.
    14. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2017. "A Talmudic Approach to Bankruptcy Problems," Working Papers 17.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    15. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & Josep E. Peris & María-José Solís-Baltodano, 2023. "Resource allocations with guaranteed awards in claims problems," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(3), pages 581-602, September.
    16. William Thomson, 2015. "For claims problems, another compromise between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules," RCER Working Papers 592, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    17. Harless, Patrick, 2017. "Wary of the worst: Maximizing award guarantees when new claimants may arrive," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 316-328.
    18. Satya R. Chakravarty & Palash Sarkar, 2022. "Inequality minimising subsidy and taxation," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 10(1), pages 53-67, May.
    19. Duro, Juan Antonio & Giménez-Gómez, José-Manuel & Vilella, Cori, 2020. "The allocation of CO2 emissions as a claims problem," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    20. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & Josep Peris, 2014. "Mediation in claims problems," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 5(4), pages 357-375, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:113:y:2021:i:c:p:136-148. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505565 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.