IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2509.07145.html

Efficient Defection: Overage-Proportional Rationing Attains the Cooperative Frontier

Author

Listed:
  • Florian Lengyel

Abstract

We study a noncooperative $n$-player game of slack allocation in which each player $j$ has entitlement $L_j>0$ and chooses a claim $C_j\ge0$. Let $v_j=(C_j-L_j)_+$ (overage) and $s_j=(L_j-C_j)_+$ (slack); set $X=\sum_j v_j$ and $I=\sum_j s_j$. At the end of the period an overage-proportional clearing rule allocates cooperative surplus $I$ to defectors in proportion to $v_j$; cooperators receive $C_j$. We show: (i) the selfish outcome reproduces the cooperative payoff vector $(L_1,\dots,L_n)$; (ii) with bounded actions, defection is a weakly dominant strategy; (iii) within the $\alpha$-power family, the linear rule ($\alpha=1$) is the unique boundary-continuous member; and (iv) the dominant-strategy outcome is Strong Nash under transferable utility and hence coalition-proof (Bernheim et al., 1987). We give a policy interpretation for carbon rationing with a penalty collar.

Suggested Citation

  • Florian Lengyel, 2025. "Efficient Defection: Overage-Proportional Rationing Attains the Cooperative Frontier," Papers 2509.07145, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2025.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2509.07145
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.07145
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Bernheim, B. Douglas & Peleg, Bezalel & Whinston, Michael D., 1987. "Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibria I. Concepts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-12, June.
    3. Robert J. Aumann, 2025. "Game-Theoretic Analysis of a Bankruptcy Problem from the Talmud," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS TO GAME THEORY, chapter 9, pages 219-242, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    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. Bochet, Olivier & Sakai, Toyotaka & Thomson, William, 2024. "Preference manipulations lead to the uniform rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    2. Emin Karagözoğlu, 2014. "A noncooperative approach to bankruptcy problems with an endogenous estate," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 217(1), pages 299-318, June.
    3. Erlanson, Albin & Szwagrzak, Karol, 2013. "Strategy-Proof Package Assignment," Working Papers 2013:43, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    4. Cano Berlanga, Sebastian & Giménez Gómez, José M. (José Manuel) & Vilella Bach, Misericòrdia, 2015. "Enjoying cooperative games: The R package GameTheory," Working Papers 2072/247653, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    5. Wulf Gaertner & Richard Bradley & Yongsheng Xu & Lars Schwettmann, 2019. "Against the proportionality principle: Experimental findings on bargaining over losses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Erik Ansink & Hans-Peter Weikard, 2012. "Sequential sharing rules for river sharing problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(2), pages 187-210, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Bas Dietzenbacher & Yuki Tamura & William Thomson, 2024. "Partial-implementation invariance and claims problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(1), pages 203-229, August.
    9. 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.
    10. Hendrickx, R.L.P. & Borm, P.E.M. & Elk, R. & Quant, M., 2005. "Minimal Overlap Rules for Bankruptcy," Other publications TiSEM 281932c0-26d6-4f02-a01f-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    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. Quant, M. & Borm, P.E.M. & Maaten, R., 2005. "A Concede-and-Divide Rule for Bankruptcy Problems," Discussion Paper 2005-20, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    13. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & António Osório & Josep E. Peris, 2015. "From Bargaining Solutions to Claims Rules: A Proportional Approach," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Nir Dagan & Oscar Volij & Roberto Serrano, 1999. "Feasible implementation of taxation methods," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 4(1), pages 57-72.
    16. Josep E. Peris & José Jiménez-Gómez, 2012. "A Proportional Approach to Bankruptcy Problems with a guaranteed minimum," QM&ET Working Papers 12-7, University of Alicante, D. Quantitative Methods and Economic Theory.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Gabrielle Demange, 2021. "On the resolution of cross-liabilities," PSE Working Papers halshs-03151128, HAL.
    20. William Thomson, 2014. "Compromising between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules," RCER Working Papers 584, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2509.07145. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.