IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v48y2004i4p506-524.html

The Limitations of Fair Division

Author

Listed:
  • Gerald Schneider

    (Department of Politics and Management, Universität Konstanz, Germany)

  • Ulrike Sabrina Krämer

    (Department of Politics and Management, Universität Konstanz, Germany)

Abstract

Mathematical procedures that promise an envy-free, equitable, and efficient solution to distributional conflicts have received widespread attention. Two fair-division mechanisms, adjusted Knaster and proportional Knaster, which are similar to the well-known adjusted-winner procedure, are compared with the less fair divide-and-choose mechanism. Results show that participants largely prefer the adjusted-Knaster procedure to the two alternatives. Adjusted Knaster, closely followed by proportional Knaster, also promises the highest average payoff. Yet the sophisticated mechanisms cease to perform better than divide-and-choose once actors receive the possibility to deviate from the mandatory bargaining protocols of fair-division procedures. The preference for adjusted and proportional Knaster is found to be a partial function of the participants’ psychological profile. The more “antisocial†a participant, the more likely this respondent is to opt for a procedure with a compensatory mechanism.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerald Schneider & Ulrike Sabrina Krämer, 2004. "The Limitations of Fair Division," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(4), pages 506-524, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:48:y:2004:i:4:p:506-524
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002704266148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002704266148
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002704266148?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. Philip A. Michelbach & John T. Scott & Richard E. Matland & Brian H. Bornstein, 2003. "Doing Rawls Justice: An Experimental Study of Income Distribution Norms," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(3), pages 523-539, July.
    2. Raith, Matthias G., 2000. "Fair-negotiation procedures," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 303-322, May.
    3. Frohlich, Norman & Oppenheimer, Joe & Bernard Moore, J., 2001. "Some doubts about measuring self-interest using dictator experiments: the costs of anonymity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 271-290, November.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    5. Evans, Robert & Maskin, Eric, 1989. "Efficient renegotiation--proof equilibria in repeated games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 1(4), pages 361-369, December.
    6. Edelman, Paul & Fishburn, Peter, 2001. "Fair division of indivisible items among people with similar preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 327-347, May.
    7. Farrell, Joseph & Maskin, Eric, 1989. "Renegotiation in repeated games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 1(4), pages 327-360, December.
    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. Fedor Sandomirskiy & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2019. "Efficient Fair Division with Minimal Sharing," Papers 1908.01669, arXiv.org, revised Apr 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. Leif Helland & Jon Hovi, 2008. "Renegotiation Proofness and Climate Agreements: Some Experimental Evidence," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 34, pages 1-2.
    2. Tan, Jonathan H.W. & Breitmoser, Yves & Bolle, Friedel, 2015. "Voluntary contributions by consent or dissent," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 106-121.
    3. Sophie Cetre & Max Lobeck & Claudia Senik & Thierry Verdier, 2018. "In search of unanimously preferred income distributions. Evidence from a choice experiment," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) halshs-01863359, HAL.
    4. Günther, Michael & Kuzmics, Christoph & Salomon, Antoine, 2019. "A note on “Renegotiation in repeated games” [Games Econ. Behav. 1 (1989) 327–360]," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 318-323.
    5. Ayça Kaya & Galina Vereshchagina, 2015. "Moral hazard and sorting in a market for partnerships," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 60(1), pages 73-121, September.
    6. Matthew Embrey & Friederike Mengel & Ronald Peeters, 2019. "Strategy revision opportunities and collusion," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 834-856, December.
    7. Takashima, Nobuyuki, 2017. "International environmental agreements with ancillary benefits: Repeated games analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 312-320.
    8. Alejandro Caparrós, 2016. "Bargaining and International Environmental Agreements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(1), pages 5-31, September.
    9. Ales, Laurence & Sleet, Christopher, 2014. "Revision proofness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 324-355.
    10. Ansink, Erik & Houba, Harold, 2016. "Sustainable agreements on stochastic river flow," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 92-117.
    11. Zhonghao SHUI, 2020. "Degree-K subgame perfect Nash equilibria and the folk theorem," Discussion papers e-20-001, Graduate School of Economics , Kyoto University.
    12. Houba, H., 1992. "Non-cooperative bargaining in infinitely repeated games with binding contracts," Serie Research Memoranda 0009, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    13. Niko Jaakkola & Florian Wagener, 2020. "All symmetric equilibria in differential games with public goods," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-020/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. Daniel Müller & Sander Renes, 2021. "Fairness views and political preferences: evidence from a large and heterogeneous sample," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 679-711, May.
    15. Maximilian Andres, 2023. "Communication in the Infinitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma: Theory and Experiments," Papers 2304.12297, arXiv.org.
    16. Keigo Kameda & Miho Sato, 2017. "Distributional Preference in Japan," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 394-408, September.
    17. Picard, Pierre M. & Worrall, Tim, 2020. "Currency areas and voluntary transfers," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    18. Batista, Quentin & Nakata, Taisuke & Sunakawa, Takeki, 2023. "Credible Forward Guidance," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    19. Newton, Jonathan, 2017. "Shared intentions: The evolution of collaboration," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 517-534.
    20. Yasuhiro Shirata, 2020. "Evolution of a Collusive Price in a Networked Market," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 528-554, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:jocore:v:48:y:2004:i:4:p:506-524. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.