Abstract
Consider the following nine rules for adjudicating conflicting claims: the proportional, constrained equal awards, constrained equal losses, Talmud, Piniles’, constrained egalitarian, adjusted proportional, random arrival, and minimal overlap rules. For each pair of rules in this list, we examine whether or not the two rules are Lorenz comparable. We allow the comparison to depend upon whether the amount to divide is larger or smaller than the half-sum of claims. In addition, we provide Lorenz-based characterizations of the constrained equal awards, constrained equal losses, Talmud, Piniles’, constrained egalitarian, and minimal overlap rules.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Change history
09 September 2022
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00182-022-00807-2
References
Bosmans K, Schokkaert E (2009) Equality preference in the claims problem: a questionnaire study of cuts in earnings and pensions. Soc Choice Welf 33: 533–557
Chun Y, Thomson W (2005) Convergence under replication of rules to adjudicate conflicting claims. Games Econ Behav 50: 129–142
Chun Y, Schummer J, Thomson W (2001) Constrained egalitarianism: a new solution for claims problems. Seoul J Econ 14: 269–297
Dominguez D, Thomson W (2006) A new solution to the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims. Econ Theory 28: 283–307
Herrero C, Villar A (2001) The three musketeers: four classical solutions to bankruptcy problems. Math Soc Sci 42: 307–328
Hougaard JL, Thorlund-Petersen L (2001) Bankruptcy rules, inequality, and uncertainty. Working Paper 4/01, Department of Operations Management, Copenhagen Business School
Moreno-Ternero JD, Villar A (2004) The Talmud rule and the securement of agents’ awards. Math Soc Sci 47: 245–257
Moreno-Ternero JD, Villar A (2006) On the relative equitability of a family of taxation rules. J Public Econ Theory 8: 283–291
Moulin H (2002) Axiomatic cost and surplus sharing. In: Arrow KJ, Sen AK, Suzumura K (eds) Handbook of social choice and welfare. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 289–357
Schummer J, Thomson W (1997) Two derivations of the uniform rule and an application to bankruptcy. Econ Lett 55: 333–337
Sen AK (1973) On economic inequality. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Thomson W (2002) Two families of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims. Mimeo
Thomson W (2003) Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey. Math Soc Sci 45: 249–297
Thomson W (2006) How to divide when there is not enough; from the Talmud to game theory. Unpublished book manuscript
Thomson W (2011) Lorenz rankings of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims. Econ Theory. doi:10.1007/s00199-010-0575-5
Thomson W, Yeh C-H (2006) Operators for the adjudication of conflicting claims. Rochester Center for Economic Research Working Paper 531, University of Rochester
Acknowledgments
We thank Bart Capéau, Frank Cowell, Juan Moreno-Ternero, Erik Schokkaert, Frans Spinnewyn, William Thomson, and Bertil Tungodden for their comments. We also thank an anonymous associate editor and two anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions. All remaining shortcoming are ours. Kristof Bosmans gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Fund for Scientific Research—Flanders (grant G.0005.04) and the Interuniversity Attraction Poles network funded by the Federal Public Planning Service, Belgian Science Policy (grant P5/21-A).
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
An earlier version of this paper was circulated in January 2007 (CES Discussion Paper 07.05, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven).
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Bosmans, K., Lauwers, L. Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims. Int J Game Theory 40, 791–807 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00182-010-0269-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00182-010-0269-z
Keywords
- Claims problem
- Bankruptcy
- Taxation
- Lorenz dominance
- Proportional rule
- Constrained equal awards rule
- Constrained equal losses rule
- Talmud rule
- Piniles’ rule
- Constrained egalitarian rule
- Adjusted proportional rule
- Random arrival rule
- Minimal overlap rule