IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/115467.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Loss sharing: characterizing a new class of rules

Author

Listed:
  • Gaertner, Wulf
  • Xu, Yongsheng

Abstract

The class of rules that we propose and characterize can be viewed as a variant of the standard model in the literature on cost and surplus sharing. It basically has two reference points: an equal share of the loss and a weighted difference between an agent's endowment or claim and the average endowment of the individuals concerned. Our class of rules comprises some prominent sharing rules such as equal split and the proportionality principle.

Suggested Citation

  • Gaertner, Wulf & Xu, Yongsheng, 2020. "Loss sharing: characterizing a new class of rules," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115467, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:115467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/115467/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. ,, 2001. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(6), pages 1157-1160, December.
    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. 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.
    4. Thomson, William, 2013. "A characterization of a family of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 157-168.
    5. Moulin, Herve, 2002. "Axiomatic cost and surplus sharing," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 289-357, Elsevier.
    6. Ju, Biung-Ghi & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2018. "Entitlement Theory Of Justice And End-State Fairness In The Allocation Of Goods," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 317-341, November.
    7. Chun-Hsien Yeh, 2006. "Protective Properties and the Constrained Equal Awards Rule for Claims Problems: A Note," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(2), pages 221-230, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Ju, Biung-Ghi & Miyagawa, Eiichi & Sakai, Toyotaka, 2007. "Non-manipulable division rules in claim problems and generalizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 1-26, January.
    10. Calleja, Pedro & Llerena, Francesc & Sudhölter, Peter, 2021. "Constrained welfare egalitarianism in surplus-sharing problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 45-51.
    11. ,, 2001. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(5), pages 1025-1031, October.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Young, H. P., 1988. "Distributive justice in taxation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 321-335, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Pfingsten, Andreas, 1991. "Surplus-sharing methods," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 287-301, June.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Bergantiños, Gustavo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Monotonicity in sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 338-346.
    2. Calleja, Pedro & Llerena, Francesc & Sudhölter, Peter, 2021. "Constrained welfare egalitarianism in surplus-sharing problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 45-51.

    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. Andrea Gallice, 2019. "Bankruptcy problems with reference-dependent preferences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(1), pages 311-336, 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. 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. 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. Wulf Gaertner & Lars Schwettmann, 2017. "Burden sharing in deficit countries: a questionnaire-experimental investigation," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 113-144, June.
    7. Harless, Patrick, 2017. "Wary of the worst: Maximizing award guarantees when new claimants may arrive," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 316-328.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Biung-Ghi Ju & Juan Moreno-Ternero, 2011. "Progressive and merging-proof taxation," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(1), pages 43-62, February.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Yeh, Chun-Hsien, 2008. "Secured lower bound, composition up, and minimal rights first for bankruptcy problems," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(9-10), pages 925-932, September.
    18. Giménez-Gómez, José Manuel, 2011. "A way to play bankruptcy problems," Working Papers 2072/169781, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    19. Valencia-Toledo, Alfredo & Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2017. "Duality in land rental problems," MPRA Paper 80509, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    independence of rank- and-mean preserving changes; loss sharing; monotonicity in contributions; sharing rule;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics

    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:ehl:lserod:115467. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.