A Noncooperative Support for Equal Division in Estate Division Problems
We consider estate division problems, a generalization of bankruptcy problems. We show that in a direct revelation claim game, if the underlying division rule satisfies efficiency, equal treatment of equals, and weak order preservation, then all (pure strategy) Nash equilibria induce equal division. Next, we consider division rules satisfying efficiency, equal treatment of equals, and claims monotonicity. For claim games with at most three agents, again all Nash equilibria induce equal division. Surprisingly, this result does not extend to claim games with more than three agents. However, if nonbossiness is added, then equal division is restored.
|Date of creation:||Nov 2008|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Soldiers Field, Boston, Massachusetts 02163|
Web page: http://www.hbs.edu/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Gaechter,S. & Riedl,A., 2002.
"Moral property rights in bargaining,"
Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers
330, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
- Simon Gaechter & Arno Riedl, 2002. "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," CESifo Working Paper Series 697, CESifo Group Munich.
- Simon Gï¿½chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Moulin, Herve, 2001.
"Axiomatic Cost and Surplis-Sharing,"
2001-06, Rice University, Department of Economics.
- Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2003.
"Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims,"
Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers
03-055/1, Tinbergen Institute.
- Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2005. "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(2), pages 249-263, February.
- Chun, Youngsub, 1989. "A noncooperative justification for egalitarian surplus sharing," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 245-261, June.
- Itai Ashlagi & Emin Karagozoglu & Bettina Klaus, 2008.
"A Noncooperative Support for Equal Division in Estate Division Problems,"
Harvard Business School Working Papers
09-069, Harvard Business School.
- Ashlagi, Itai & Karagözoğlu, Emin & Klaus, Bettina, 2012. "A non-cooperative support for equal division in estate division problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 228-233.
- Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
- Mark A. Satterthwaite & Hugo Sonnenschein, 1981. "Strategy-Proof Allocation Mechanisms at Differentiable Points," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(4), pages 587-597.
- Allan M. Feldman & Jeonghyun Kim, 2005.
"The Hand Rule and
United States v. Carroll Towing Co.Reconsidered," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 523-543.
- William Thomson, 2010. "Implementation of solutions to the problem of fair division when preferences are single-peaked," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, 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.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hbs:wpaper:09-069. 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: (Soebagio Notosoehardjo)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.