Summary.
We investigate the existence of consistent rules for the resolution of conflicting claims that generalize the Talmud rule but do not necessarily satisfy equal treatment of equal. The first approach we follow starts from the description of the Talmud rule in the two-claimant case as “concede-and-divide”, and an axiomatic characterization for the rule. When equal treatment of equals is dropped, we obtain a one-parameter family, “weighted concede-and divide rules”. The second approach starts from the description of the Talmud rule as a hybrid of the constrained equal awards and constrained equal losses rules, and weighted generalizations of these rules. We characterize the class of consistent rules that coincide with weighted concede-and divide rules rules in the two-claimant case or with weighted hybrid rules. They are defined by partitioning the set of potential claimants into “priority classes” or “half-priority classes” respectively, and selecting reference weights for all potential claimants. For the first approach however, and in each class with more than two claimants, equal treatment is actually required
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Received: April 8, 2002; revised version: June 26, 2002
RID="*"
ID="*"Thomson acknowledges support from NSF under grant SBR-9731431. We thank Jean-Pierre Benoît for his comments, and the referee for several useful suggestions.
Correspondence to: W. Thomson
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hokari, T., Thomson, W. Claims problems and weighted generalizations of the Talmud rule. Econ Theory 21, 241–261 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-002-0314-7
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-002-0314-7