IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cvs/starer/96-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Camp David: Was the Agreement Fair?

Author

Listed:
  • Brams, Steven J.
  • Togman, Jeffrey M.

Abstract

The agreement between Egypt and Israel at Camp David in 1978 is used to illustrate how a fair-division procedure called Adjusted Winner (AW), in which two sides allocate 100 points over the issues that divide them, could have been used to reach a settlement. AW satisfies the properties of envy-freeness (each side is ensured of receiving at least 50 of its points and hence does not envy the other side), equitability (each side receives the same number of points over 50), and efficiency (there is no other settlement better for both players). While the actual agreement at Camp David seems to reflect quite well what AW would have yielded on the six issues that divided the two sides, this agreement probably could have been achieved more expeditiously, and in a less crisis-driven atmosphere, if AW had been used.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Brams, Steven J. & Togman, Jeffrey M., 1996. "Camp David: Was the Agreement Fair?," Working Papers 96-04, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
  • Handle: RePEc:cvs:starer:96-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/9383/RR96-04.PDF
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:matsoc:v:89:y:2017:i:c:p:100-108 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bargaining; envy-freeness; fair division; territorial disputes;

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory

    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:cvs:starer:96-04. 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: (Anne Stubing). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aenyuus.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.