IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v68y2022i11p7977-7993.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Price of Imposing Vertical Equity Through Asymmetric Outcome Constraints

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Breugem

    (Technology and Operations Management, INSEAD, Fontainebleau 77300, France)

  • Luk N. Van Wassenhove

    (Technology and Operations Management, INSEAD, Fontainebleau 77300, France)

Abstract

Vertical equity or fairness is an important aspect in many settings, yet has received relatively little attention in the literature. Recent developments underline the practical relevance (e.g., COVID-19 vaccination policies). It plays an important role in the performance evaluation of many (nongovernmental) organizations. For example, donors might require a family-planning organization to allocate a minimum fraction of the total utility (client volume) to a particular player (the “high-impact” subgroup of the population, e.g., young and poor clients). However, the price (decrease in client volume) of such requirements is not well-understood. Consequently, this price is not accounted for in decision making. We provide an analytical upper bound on the price (i.e., loss of overall utility) of vertical equity considerations in resource allocation. We assume that these concerns are expressed via outcome constraints, specifying a minimum percentage of the total utility for each player. Our set-up considers a decision maker maximizing total utility over a general convex set, subject to outcome constraints. The set-up is general and applicable to many practical problems. Our results depend only on high-level parameters and are therefore well-suited for strategic decision making. We conclude with two applications. First, we apply our results to practical instances in health delivery. We confirm that outcome constraints can entail a substantial price and analyze the factors driving this price close to the worst-case bound. Second, we analyze how our results can help bound the impact of prioritization in vaccine allocation.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Breugem & Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 2022. "The Price of Imposing Vertical Equity Through Asymmetric Outcome Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 7977-7993, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:68:y:2022:i:11:p:7977-7993
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2021.4287
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4287
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4287?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ohad Eisenhandler & Michal Tzur, 2019. "The Humanitarian Pickup and Distribution Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 10-32, January.
    2. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    3. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    4. Cynthia Barnhart & Dimitris Bertsimas & Constantine Caramanis & Douglas Fearing, 2012. "Equitable and Efficient Coordination in Traffic Flow Management," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 262-280, May.
    5. Marsh, Michael T. & Schilling, David A., 1994. "Equity measurement in facility location analysis: A review and framework," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 1-17, April.
    6. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2011. "The Price of Fairness," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 17-31, February.
    7. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2013. "Fairness, Efficiency, and Flexibility in Organ Allocation for Kidney Transplantation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 73-87, February.
    8. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2012. "On the Efficiency-Fairness Trade-off," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(12), pages 2234-2250, December.
    9. J. N. Hooker & H. P. Williams, 2012. "Combining Equity and Utilitarianism in a Mathematical Programming Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(9), pages 1682-1693, September.
    10. Jessica H. McCoy & Hau L. Lee, 2014. "Using Fairness Models to Improve Equity in Health Delivery Fleet Management," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 23(6), pages 965-977, June.
    11. Nishi, Tatsushi & Sugiyama, Taichi & Inuiguchi, Masahiro, 2014. "Two-level decomposition algorithm for crew rostering problems with fair working condition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 465-473.
    12. John P. Dickerson & Ariel D. Procaccia & Tuomas Sandholm, 2019. "Failure-Aware Kidney Exchange," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1768-1791, April.
    13. Alexandre Jacquillat & Vikrant Vaze, 2018. "Interairline Equity in Airport Scheduling Interventions," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 941-964, August.
    14. Núñez Ares, José & de Vries, Harwin & Huisman, Dennis, 2016. "A column generation approach for locating roadside clinics in Africa based on effectiveness and equity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 1002-1016.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Breugem, Thomas & Van Wassenhove, Luk N., 2022. "The price of imposing vertical equity through asymmetric outcome constraints," Other publications TiSEM b6e85652-c54a-4597-a32e-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Thomas Breugem & Twan Dollevoet & Dennis Huisman, 2022. "Is Equality Always Desirable? Analyzing the Trade-Off Between Fairness and Attractiveness in Crew Rostering," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2619-2641, April.
    3. Karsu, Özlem & Morton, Alec, 2015. "Inequity averse optimization in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(2), pages 343-359.
    4. Gur, Yonatan & Iancu, Dan & Warnes, Xavier, 2020. "Value Loss in Allocation Systems with Provider Guarantees," Research Papers 3813, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    5. Yonatan Gur & Dan Iancu & Xavier Warnes, 2021. "Value Loss in Allocation Systems with Provider Guarantees," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 3757-3784, June.
    6. Jamie Fairbrother & Konstantinos G. Zografos & Kevin D. Glazebrook, 2020. "A Slot-Scheduling Mechanism at Congested Airports that Incorporates Efficiency, Fairness, and Airline Preferences," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 115-138, January.
    7. Argyris, Nikolaos & Karsu, Özlem & Yavuz, Mirel, 2022. "Fair resource allocation: Using welfare-based dominance constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 560-578.
    8. John P. Dickerson & Ariel D. Procaccia & Tuomas Sandholm, 2019. "Failure-Aware Kidney Exchange," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1768-1791, April.
    9. Alexandre Jacquillat & Vikrant Vaze, 2018. "Interairline Equity in Airport Scheduling Interventions," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 941-964, August.
    10. Chen, Violet Xinying & Hooker, J.N., 2022. "Combining leximax fairness and efficiency in a mathematical programming model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(1), pages 235-248.
    11. Wolbeck, Lena Antonia, 2019. "Fairness aspects in personnel scheduling," Discussion Papers 2019/16, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    12. Chong Hyun Park & Gemma Berenguer, 2020. "Supply Constrained Location‐Distribution in Not‐for‐Profit Settings," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(11), pages 2461-2483, November.
    13. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin, 2015. "A Tale of Two Bargaining Solutions," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-14, June.
    14. LAMAS, ALEJANDRO & CHEVALIER, Philippe, 2013. "Jumping the hurdles for collaboration: fairness in operations pooling in the absence of transfer payments," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2013073, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    15. Ye, Qing Chuan & Zhang, Yingqian & Dekker, Rommert, 2017. "Fair task allocation in transportation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-16.
    16. Hussein El Hajj & Douglas R. Bish & Ebru K. Bish, 2021. "Equity in genetic newborn screening," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(1), pages 44-64, February.
    17. Gutjahr, Walter J., 2021. "Inequity-averse stochastic decision processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 258-270.
    18. Jérémie Gallien & Ngai‐Hang Z. Leung & Prashant Yadav, 2021. "Inventory Policies for Pharmaceutical Distribution in Zambia: Improving Availability and Access Equity," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(12), pages 4501-4521, December.
    19. Nicosia, Gaia & Pacifici, Andrea & Pferschy, Ulrich, 2017. "Price of Fairness for allocating a bounded resource," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 933-943.
    20. Violet Xinying Chen & J. N. Hooker, 2023. "A guide to formulating fairness in an optimization model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(1), pages 581-619, July.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:68:y:2022:i:11:p:7977-7993. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.