Allocation rules on networks
ABSTRACT: When allocating a resource, geographical and infrastructural constraints have to be taken into account. We study the problem of distributing a resource through a network from sources endowed with the resource to citizens with claims. A link between a source and an agent depicts the possibility of a transfer from the source to the agent. Given the supplies at each source, the claims of citizens, and the network, the question is how to allocate the available resources among the citizens.We consider a simple allocation problem that is free of network constraints, where the total amount can be freely distributed. The simple allocation problem is a claims problem where the total amount of claims is greater than what is available. We focus on consistent and resource monotonic rules in claims problems that satisfy equal treatment of equals. We call these rules fairness principles and we extend fairness principles to allocation rules on networks. We require that for each pair of citizens in the network, the extension is robust with respect to the fairness principle. We call this condition pairwise robustness with respect to the fairness principle. We provide an algorithm and show that each fairness principle has a unique extension which is pairwise robust with respect to the fairness principle. We give applications of the algorithm for three fairness principles: egalitarianism, proportionality and equal sacri ce.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
|Date of creation:||11 Mar 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| |
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- Erik Ansink & Hans-Peter Weikard, 2009.
"Sequential Sharing Rules for River Sharing Problems,"
2009.114, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
- 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.
- Kibris, Ozgur & Kucuksenel, Serkan, 2005.
"Trade rules for uncleared markets,"
1232, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Rodica Branzei & Giulio Ferrari & Vito Fragnelli & Stef Tijs, 2008. "A Flow Approach to Bankruptcy Problems," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 2(2), pages 146-153, September.
- Oscar Volij & Nir Dagan, 1997.
"Bilateral Comparisons and Consistent Fair Division Rules in the Context of Bankruptcy Problems,"
International Journal of Game Theory,
Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 26(1), pages 11-25.
- Volij, Oscar & Dagan, Nir, 1997. "Bilateral Comparisons and Consistent Fair Division Rules in the Context of Bankruptcy Problems," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5141, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Dagan, N. & Volij, O.C., 1994. "Bilateral Comparisons and Consistent Fair Division Rules in the Context of Bankruptcy Problems," Discussion Paper 1994-23, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Nir Dagan & Oscar Volij, 1997. "Bilateral Comparisons and Consistent Fair Division Rules in the Context of Bankruptcy Problems," Economic theory and game theory 004, Nir Dagan.
- Endre Bjørndal & Kurt Jörnsten, 2010. "Flow sharing and bankruptcy games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 39(1), pages 11-28, March.
- Bochet, Olivier & Ilkilic, Rahmi & Moulin, Hervé & Sethuraman, Jay, 2012. "Balancing supply and demand under bilateral constraints," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 7(3), September.
- Ansink, Erik & Weikard, Hans-Peter, 2009. "Contested water rights," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 247-260, June.
- Hokari, Toru & Thomson, William, 2008.
"On properties of division rules lifted by bilateral consistency,"
Journal of Mathematical Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1057-1071, December.
- Toru Hokari & William Thomson, 2007. "On properties of division rules lifted by bilateral consistency," RCER Working Papers 536, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Sprumont, Yves, 1991. "The Division Problem with Single-Peaked Preferences: A Characterization of the Uniform Allocation Rule," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 509-19, March.
- 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.
- Bochet, Olivier & İlkılıç, Rahmi & Moulin, Hervé, 2013. "Egalitarianism under earmark constraints," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(2), pages 535-562.
- Youngsub Chun, 1999. "Equivalence of Axioms for Bankruptcy Problems," Working Paper Series no1, Institute of Economic Research, Seoul National University.
- Klaus B. & Peters H. & Storcken T., 1995.
"Reallocation of an infinetely divisible good,"
012, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
- Anirban Kar & Özgür Kıbrıs, 2008. "Allocating multiple estates among agents with single-peaked preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(4), pages 641-666, December.
- Youngsub Chun, 1999. "Equivalence of axioms for bankruptcy problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 28(4), pages 511-520.
- Bettina Klaus & Hans Peters & Ton Storcken, 1998. "Strategy-proof division with single-peaked preferences and individual endowments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(2), pages 297-311.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:col:000092:009380. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Facultad de Economía)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.