On the existence of consistent rules to adjudicate conflicting claims: a constructive geometric approach
- 82 Downloads
For the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims, a rule is consistent if the choice it makes for each problem is always in agreement with the choice it makes for each “reduced problem” obtained by imagining that some claimants leave with their awards and reassessing the situation from the viewpoint of the remaining claimants. We develop a general technique to determine whether a given two-claimant rule admits a consistent extension to general populations, and to identify this extension if it exists. We apply the technique to a succession of examples.
KeywordsClaims problems Consistent extensions Proportional rule Constrained equal awards rule Constrained equal losses rule
JEL ClassificationC79 D63 D74
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Balinski M, Young P (1982) Fair representation. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
- Hokari T, Thomson W (2000) On properties of division rules lifted by bilateral consistency, mimeoGoogle Scholar
- Thomson W (2001) A characterization of a family of rules for the resolution of conflicting claims, mimeo, revised 2006Google Scholar
- Thomson W (2002) Two families of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims, mimeoGoogle Scholar
- Thomson W (2006) Consistent allocation rules, mimeoGoogle Scholar
- Thomson W (2007) The claims-truncated proportional rule has no consistent extension: a geometric proof. Econ Lett (forthcoming)Google Scholar
- Thomson W, Lensberg T (1989) The axiomatic theory of bargaining with a variable number of agents. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Thomson W, Yeh C-H (2001) Minimal rights, maximal claims, duality and convexity for division rules, mimeo, revised 2003Google Scholar