IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/orspec/v45y2023i3d10.1007_s00291-023-00711-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sequential claim games

Author

Listed:
  • Qianqian Kong

    (Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics)

  • Hans Peters

    (Maastricht University)

Abstract

We consider the estate division or bankruptcy problem and assume that players sequentially put claims on the estate. Each part of the estate is then divided proportionally with respect to the number of claims on it. We focus on myopic play: players first claim the hitherto least claimed parts, and on subgame perfect equilibria. Our main result is that myopic strategies constitute a subgame perfect equilibrium if punishments for deviators are included.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:orspec:v:45:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s00291-023-00711-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s00291-023-00711-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00291-023-00711-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00291-023-00711-5?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. Klumpp, Tilman & Konrad, Kai, 2018. "Sequential Majoritarian Blotto Games," Working Papers 2018-8, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
    2. Calleja, Pedro & Borm, Peter & Hendrickx, Ruud, 2005. "Multi-issue allocation situations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 730-747, August.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Carlos González-Alcón & Peter Borm & Ruud Hendrickx, 2007. "A composite run-to-the-bank rule for multi-issue allocation situations," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 65(2), pages 339-352, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Ginsburgh, Victor & Zang, Israel, 2003. "The museum pass game and its value," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 322-325, May.
    8. Young, H. P., 1988. "Distributive justice in taxation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 321-335, April.
    9. Young, H. P., 1987. "Progressive taxation and the equal sacrifice principle," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 203-214, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Atlamaz, Murat & Berden, Caroline & Peters, Hans & Vermeulen, Dries, 2011. "Non-cooperative solutions for estate division problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 39-51, September.
    12. BERGANTIÑOS, Gustavo & MORENO-TERNERO, Juan D., 2016. "A New Rule for the Problem of Sharing the Revenue from Museum Passes," LIDAM Reprints CORE 2721, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    13. Rahmi İlkılıç & Çağatay Kayı, 2014. "Allocation rules on networks," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(4), pages 877-892, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Doudou Gong & Genjiu Xu & Xuanzhu Jin & Loyimee Gogoi, 2022. "A sequential partition method for non-cooperative games of bankruptcy problems," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 30(2), pages 359-379, July.
    16. Peters, Hans & Schröder, Marc & Vermeulen, Dries, 2019. "Claim games for estate division problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 105-115.
    17. Hervé Moulin & Jay Sethuraman, 2013. "The Bipartite Rationing Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1087-1100, October.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Stovall, John E., 2020. "Equal sacrifice taxation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 55-75.
    21. Pálvölgyi, Dénes & Peters, Hans & Vermeulen, Dries, 2014. "A strategic approach to multiple estate division problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 135-152.
    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. 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. Sinan Ertemel & Rajnish Kumar, 2018. "Proportional rules for state contingent claims," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 229-246, March.
    3. Long, Yan & Sethuraman, Jay & Xue, Jingyi, 2021. "Equal-quantile rules in resource allocation with uncertain needs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    4. Jingyi Xue, 2018. "Fair division with uncertain needs," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 105-136, June.
    5. Martínez, Ricardo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Compensation and sacrifice in the probabilistic rationing of indivisible units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 740-751.
    6. Peters, Hans & Schröder, Marc & Vermeulen, Dries, 2019. "Claim games for estate division problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 105-115.
    7. Gustavo Bergantiños & Jose María Chamorro & Leticia Lorenzo & Silvia Lorenzo‐Freire, 2018. "Mixed rules in multi‐issue allocation situations," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 66-77, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Mirjam Groote Schaarsberg & Hans Reijnierse & Peter Borm, 2018. "On solving mutual liability problems," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 87(3), pages 383-409, June.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Teresa Estañ & Natividad Llorca & Ricardo Martínez & Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano, 2021. "On the Difficulty of Budget Allocation in Claims Problems with Indivisible Items and Prices," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1133-1159, October.
    13. 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.
    14. Balbina Casas-Mendez & Vito Fragnelli & Ignacio Garcìa-Jurado, 2014. "A survey of allocation rules for the museum pass problem," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 38(2), pages 191-205, May.
    15. Stovall, John E., 2014. "Collective rationality and monotone path division rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-24.
    16. 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.
    17. Ephraim Zehavi & Amir Leshem, 2018. "On the Allocation of Multiple Divisible Assets to Players with Different Utilities," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 52(1), pages 253-274, June.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:spr:orspec:v:45:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s00291-023-00711-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.