IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/urv/wpaper/2072-535073.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How to distribute the ERDF funds through a combination of egalitarian allocations: the CELmin

Author

Listed:
  • Salekpay, Foroogh
  • Giménez-Gómez, José Manuel

Abstract

As Solís-Baltodano et al. (2021) figure out, almost a third of the total European Union budget– has been set aside for the Cohesion Policy during the 2014-2020 period. The distribution of this budget is made through three main structural and investment funds, trying to provoke the convergence in the level of development of EU countries. Specifically, the authors, by analysing this situation as a claims problem (O’Neill, 1982), find out the claims solution that performs better than the others by reducing inequality promoting convergence to a greater degree (the constrained equal losses rule). Nonetheless, when using this egalitarian division of losses, regions may receive no amount of funds. This paper defines a new way to distribute the limited resources of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). We propose a compromise between the egalitarian approaches, i.e., we combine the egalitarian division of the funds with an egalitarian division of the losses (what regions do not get). In doing so, our proposal combines the constrained equal losses solution with the ensuring of a minimum amount to each region (sustainable bound). Finally, we provide an axiomatic analysis of the new solution and we apply it to the ERDF problem. Keywords: European Regional Development Fund; Conflicting claims problems; Egalitarian distribution; Constrained equal losses

Suggested Citation

  • Salekpay, Foroogh & Giménez-Gómez, José Manuel, 2022. "How to distribute the ERDF funds through a combination of egalitarian allocations: the CELmin," Working Papers 2072/535073, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:urv:wpaper:2072/535073
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2072/535073
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kristof Bosmans & Luc Lauwers, 2011. "Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(4), pages 791-807, November.
    2. 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).
    3. H. Peyton Young, 1987. "On Dividing an Amount According to Individual Claims or Liabilities," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 398-414, August.
    4. 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.
    5. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & Jordi Teixidó-Figueras & Cori Vilella, 2016. "The global carbon budget: a conflicting claims problem," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 693-703, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Jens Hougaard & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Lars Østerdal, 2013. "Rationing with baselines: the composition extension operator," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 179-191, December.
    8. Jens Hougaard & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Lars Østerdal, 2013. "Rationing in the presence of baselines," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 1047-1066, April.
    9. Alcalde, José & Peris, Josep E., 2022. "Mixing solutions for claims problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 78-87.
    10. Ewa Kiryluk-Dryjska, 2014. "Fair Division Approach for the European Union’s Structural Policy Budget Allocation: An Application Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 597-615, May.
    11. Giménez-Gómez, José-Manuel & Peris, Josep E., 2014. "A proportional approach to claims problems with a guaranteed minimum," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(1), pages 109-116.
    12. Kristof Bosmans & Luc Lauwers, 2011. "Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(4), pages 791-807, November.
    13. Thomson,William, 2019. "How to Divide When There Isn't Enough," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107194625, October.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Thomson,William, 2019. "How to Divide When There Isn't Enough," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781316646441, October.
    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.
    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. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & Foroogh Salekpay & Cori Vilella, 2023. "How to distribute the European regional development funds through a combination of egalitarian allocations: the constrained equal losses min," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Duro, Juan Antonio & Giménez-Gómez, José-Manuel & Vilella, Cori, 2020. "The allocation of CO2 emissions as a claims problem," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    4. Sebastian Cano-Berlanga & María-José Solís-Baltodano & Cori Vilella, 2023. "The Art of Sharing Resources: How to Distribute Water during a Drought Period," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, August.
    5. René Brink & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2017. "The reverse TAL-family of rules for bankruptcy problems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 254(1), pages 449-465, July.
    6. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & Josep E. Peris & María-José Solís-Baltodano, 2023. "Resource allocations with guaranteed awards in claims problems," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(3), pages 581-602, September.
    7. 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).
    8. María José Solíx-Baltodano & Cori Vilella & José Manuel Giménez-Gómez, 2019. "The Catalan Health Budget: A Conflicting Claims Approach," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 228(1), pages 35-54, March.
    9. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & M. Carmen Marco-Gil & Juan-Francisco Sánchez-García, 2022. "New empirical insights into conflicting claims problems," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 709-738, December.
    10. Peris, Josep E. & Jiménez-Gómez, José M., 2012. "A Proportional Approach to Bankruptcy Problems with a guaranteed minimum," QM&ET Working Papers 12-7, University of Alicante, D. Quantitative Methods and Economic Theory.
    11. 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.
    12. Giménez-Gómez, José-Manuel & Osório, Antonio, 2015. "Why and how to differentiate in claims problems? An axiomatic approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(3), pages 842-850.
    13. Giménez-Gómez, José-Manuel & Peris, Josep E., 2014. "A proportional approach to claims problems with a guaranteed minimum," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(1), pages 109-116.
    14. Sanchez-Soriano, Joaquin, 2021. "Families of sequential priority rules and random arrival rules with withdrawal limits," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 136-148.
    15. William Thomson, 2014. "Compromising between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules," RCER Working Papers 584, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    16. William Thomson, 2015. "For claims problems, compromising between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 60(3), pages 495-520, November.
    17. Louis de Mesnard, 2015. "The three wives problem and Shapley value," Post-Print hal-01091714, HAL.
    18. 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.
    19. Dagmawi Mulugeta Degefu & Weijun He, 2016. "Allocating Water under Bankruptcy Scenario," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(11), pages 3949-3964, September.
    20. María-José Solís-Baltodano & José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & Josep E. Peris, 2022. "Distributing the European structural and investment funds from a conflicting claims approach [Verteilung der europäischen Struktur- und Investitionsfonds aus einem kollidierenden Forderung Ansatz]," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 42(1), pages 23-47, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fons Europeu de Desenvolupament Regional; 504 - Ciències del medi ambient;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:urv:wpaper:2072/535073. 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: Ariadna Casals (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deurves.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.