My bibliography  Save this paper

The Three Musketeers. Old Solutions to Bankruptcy Problems

Author

Listed:
• Carmen Herrero

(University of Alicante and IVIE)

Abstract

This paper concentrates on a comparative analysis of three basic rules to solve bankruptcy problems from an axiomatic viewpoint. These rules are: (i) The proportional rule, that divides the estate proportionally to agents' claims. (ii) The constrained equal-awards rule, that divides equally the estate among the agents under the condition that nobody gets more than her claim. (iii) The constrained equal-losses rule, that divides equally the diference between the aggregate claims and the budget, provided no agent ends up with a negative award. The comparative analysis of the three aforementioned rules aims at clarifying the class of real life problems for which each of these solutions is better. With this purpose in mind and following the recommendations given above, we concentrate on those characterizations that permit an easy comparison of these three rules. In particular, we focus on a family of results that characterize each of these rules by three independent axioms, two of which are common to all of them. As the Three Musketeers were four so are our three rules. The Talmud rule here will play the role of D'Artagnan. This is an appealing allocation rule that amounts to solve bankruptcy problems by combining the constrained equal awards rule and the constrained equal losses rule. We start by formally introducing the family of bankruptcy problems and the three basic rules. Then we present several appealing properties for bankruptcy rules. We offer a joint characterization of the three bankruptcy rules in terms of some of those properties, as well as independent characterizations. Previous properties help us to analyze also the contested garment rule, and its consistent extension, the Talmud rule (the rule playing here the role of D'Artagnan). Variants and extensions of the aforementioned rules are also analyzed. The paper ends by providing noncooperative support of the constrained equal-awards rule and of the constrained equal-losses rule.

Suggested Citation

• Carmen Herrero, 2000. "The Three Musketeers. Old Solutions to Bankruptcy Problems," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0609, Econometric Society.
• Handle: RePEc:ecm:wc2000:0609
as

File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/RePEc/es2000/0609.pdf
File Function: main text
---><---

References listed on IDEAS

as
1. Chun, Youngsub, 1988. "The proportional solution for rights problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 231-246, June.
2. Dagan, Nir & Serrano, Roberto & Volij, Oscar, 1997. "A Noncooperative View of Consistent Bankruptcy Rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 55-72, January.
3. Herrero, Carmen & Marco, Maria Carmen, 1993. "Rational equal-loss solutions for bargaining problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 273-286, November.
4. Dagan, Nir & Volij, Oscar, 1993. "The bankruptcy problem: a cooperative bargaining approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 287-297, November.
5. Nir Dagan, 1996. "New characterizations of old bankruptcy rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(1), pages 51-59, January.
6. Antonio Villar Notario & Carmen Herrero Blanco, 1996. "Agenda independence in allocation problems with single-peaked preferences," Working Papers. Serie AD 1996-14, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
7. Herrero, Carmen & Maschler, Michael & Villar, Antonio, 1999. "Individual rights and collective responsibility: the rights-egalitarian solution," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 59-77, January.
8. Chun, Youngsub, 1988. "The equal-loss principle for bargaining problems," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 103-106.
9. Carmen Herrero, 1997. "Endogenous reference points and the adjusted proportional solution for bargaining problems with claims," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(1), pages 113-119.
10. Eric van Damme, 1984. "The Nash Bargaining Solution is Optimal," Discussion Papers 597, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
11. Carmen Herrero & Antonio Villar, 2002. "Sustainability in bankruptcy problems," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 10(2), pages 261-273, December.
12. Young, H. P., 1988. "Distributive justice in taxation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 321-335, April.
13. Chun, Youngsub, 1989. "A noncooperative justification for egalitarian surplus sharing," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 245-261, June.
14. M. Angeles de Frutos, 1999. "Coalitional manipulations in a bankruptcy problem," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 4(3), pages 255-272.
15. Damme, Eric van, 1986. "The Nash bargaining solution is optimal," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 78-100, February.
16. 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.
17. O'Neill, Barry, 1982. "A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 345-371, June.
18. Carmen Herrero Blanco, 1998. "- Minimal Rights In Claims Problems," Working Papers. Serie AD 1998-20, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
19. William Thomson, 2001. "On the axiomatic method and its recent applications to game theory and resource allocation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(2), pages 327-386.
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, 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. Herrero, Carmen & Villar, Antonio, 2001. "The three musketeers: four classical solutions to bankruptcy problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 307-328, November.
3. Antonio Villar Notario & Carmen Herrero Blanco, 1998. "- Preeminence And Sustainability In Bankruptcy Problems," Working Papers. Serie AD 1998-17, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
4. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Giovanni Ponti, 2010. "On the adjudication of conflicting claims: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(1), pages 145-179, January.
5. Kıbrıs, Özgür & Kıbrıs, Arzu, 2013. "On the investment implications of bankruptcy laws," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 85-99.
6. Herrero, Carmen & Maschler, Michael & Villar, Antonio, 1999. "Individual rights and collective responsibility: the rights-egalitarian solution," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 59-77, January.
7. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & M. Marco-Gil, 2014. "A new approach for bounding awards in bankruptcy problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(2), pages 447-469, August.
8. van den Brink, René & Funaki, Yukihiko & van der Laan, Gerard, 2013. "Characterization of the Reverse Talmud bankruptcy rule by Exemption and Exclusion properties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 413-417.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Bergantinos, Gustavo & Sanchez, Estela, 2002. "The proportional rule for problems with constraints and claims," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 225-249, March.
12. William Thomson, 2015. "For claims problems, another compromise between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules," RCER Working Papers 592, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
13. B. Dietzenbacher & A. Estévez-Fernández & P. Borm & R. Hendrickx, 2021. "Proportionality, equality, and duality in bankruptcy problems with nontransferable utility," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 301(1), pages 65-80, June.
14. Bergantinos, Gustavo & Vidal-Puga, Juan J., 2004. "Additive rules in bankruptcy problems and other related problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 87-101, January.
15. Giménez-Gómez, José Manuel, 2011. "A way to play bankruptcy problems," Working Papers 2072/169781, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
16. Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2006. "Dividing Justly in Bargaining Problems with Claims," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(3), pages 571-594, December.
17. Thomson, William & Yeh, Chun-Hsien, 2008. "Operators for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 177-198, November.
18. Rene van den Brink & Yukihiko Funaki & Gerard van der Laan, 2008. "The Reverse Talmud Rule for Bankruptcy Problems," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 08-026/1, Tinbergen Institute, revised 27 Mar 2008.
19. José Alcalde & María Marco & José Silva, 2005. "Bankruptcy games and the Ibn Ezra’s proposal," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 26(1), pages 103-114, July.
20. Juan de Dios Moreno Ternero & Carmen Herrero Blanco & Giovanni Ponti, 2003. "An Experiment On Bankruptcy," Working Papers. Serie AD 2003-03, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).

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:ecm:wc2000:0609. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.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.

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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.html .

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.