IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2311.03950.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Stable partitions for proportional generalized claims problems

Author

Listed:
  • Oihane Gallo
  • Bettina Klaus

Abstract

We consider a set of agents who have claims on an endowment that is not large enough to cover all claims. Agents can form coalitions but a minimal coalition size $\theta$ is required to have positive coalitional funding that is proportional to the sum of the claims of its members. We analyze the structure of stable partitions when coalition members use well-behaved rules to allocate coalitional endowments, e.g., the well-known constrained equal awards rule (CEA) or the constrained equal losses rule (CEL).For continuous, (strictly) resource monotonic, and consistent rules, stable partitions with (mostly) $\theta$-size coalitions emerge. For CEA and CEL we provide algorithms to construct such a stable partition formed by $\theta$-size coalitions.

Suggested Citation

  • Oihane Gallo & Bettina Klaus, 2023. "Stable partitions for proportional generalized claims problems," Papers 2311.03950, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2311.03950
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.03950
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Stovall, John E., 2014. "Asymmetric parametric division rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 87-110.
    3. Anna Bogomolnaia & Michel Breton & Alexei Savvateev & Shlomo Weber, 2008. "Stability of jurisdiction structures under the equal share and median rules," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 34(3), pages 525-543, March.
    4. Tayfun Sönmez & Suryapratim Banerjee & Hideo Konishi, 2001. "Core in a simple coalition formation game," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(1), pages 135-153.
    5. Christopher P. Chambers & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2017. "Taxation and poverty," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 153-175, January.
    6. Robert Shimer & Lones Smith, 2000. "Assortative Matching and Search," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(2), pages 343-370, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Marek Pycia, 2012. "Stability and Preference Alignment in Matching and Coalition Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 323-362, January.
    9. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2010. "A coalitional procedure leading to a family of bankruptcy rules," Working Papers 2010-11, Universidad de Málaga, Department of Economic Theory, Málaga Economic Theory Research Center.
    10. Gallo, Oihane & Inarra, Elena, 2018. "Rationing rules and stable coalition structures," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(3), September.
    11. Silvia Lorenzo-Freire & Balbina Casas-Méndez & Ruud Hendrickx, 2010. "The two-stage constrained equal awards and losses rules for multi-issue allocation situations," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 18(2), pages 465-480, December.
    12. Becker, Gary S, 1973. "A Theory of Marriage: Part I," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(4), pages 813-846, July-Aug..
    13. Greenberg, Joseph & Weber, Shlomo, 1986. "Strong tiebout equilibrium under restricted preferences domain," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 101-117, February.
    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. Alcalde-Unzu, Jorge & Gallo, Oihane & Inarra, Elena & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2024. "Solidarity to achieve stability," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(1), pages 368-377.

    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. Alcalde-Unzu, Jorge & Gallo, Oihane & Inarra, Elena & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2024. "Solidarity to achieve stability," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(1), pages 368-377.
    3. Emiliya Lazarova & Dinko Dimitrov, 2013. "Status-seeking in hedonic games with heterogeneous players," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 1205-1229, April.
    4. Gallo, Oihane & Inarra, Elena, 2018. "Rationing rules and stable coalition structures," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(3), September.
    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. Flores-Szwagrzak, Karol & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2024. "Rationalizing Sharing Rules," Working Papers 17-2024, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    7. Bonifacio, A.G. & Inarra, E. & Neme, P., 2024. "A characterization of absorbing sets in coalition formation games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 1-22.
    8. Stovall, John E., 2020. "Equal sacrifice taxation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 55-75.
    9. Long, Yan & Sethuraman, Jay & Xue, Jingyi, 2021. "Equal-quantile rules in resource allocation with uncertain needs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    10. Patrick Harless, 2017. "Endowment additivity and the weighted proportional rules for adjudicating conflicting claims," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(3), pages 755-781, March.
    11. Gallo Fernández, Oihane & Iñarra García, María Elena, 2016. "Rationing Rules and Stable Coalition Structures," IKERLANAK 19435, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    12. Iehle, Vincent, 2007. "The core-partition of a hedonic game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 176-185, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Barberà, Salvador & Beviá, Carmen & Ponsatí, Clara, 2015. "Meritocracy, egalitarianism and the stability of majoritarian organizations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 237-257.
    15. 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).
    16. 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.
    17. Savvateev, A., 2013. "Coalitional Stability of a "Bipolar World"," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 10-43.
    18. Greg Leo & Jian Lou & Martin Van der Linden & Yevgeniy Vorobeychik & Myrna Wooders, 2021. "Matching soulmates," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(5), pages 822-857, October.
    19. Stovall, John E., 2014. "Collective rationality and monotone path division rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-24.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions

    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:arx:papers:2311.03950. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.