# Endowment additivity and the weighted proportional rules for adjudicating conflicting claims

- 229 Downloads
- 4 Citations

## Abstract

We propose and study a new axiom, restricted endowment additivity, for the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims. This axiom requires that awards be additively decomposable with respect to the endowment whenever no agent’s claim is filled. For two-claimant problems, *restricted endowment additivity* essentially characterizes weighted extensions of the proportional rule. With additional agents, however, the axiom is satisfied by a great variety of rules. Further imposing versions of *continuity* and *consistency*, we characterize a new family of rules which generalize the proportional rule. Defined by a priority relation and a weighting function, each rule aims, as nearly as possible, to assign awards within each priority class in proportion to these weights. We also identify important subfamilies and obtain new characterizations of the constrained equal awards and proportional rules based on *restricted endowment additivity*.

## Keywords

Claims problem restricted endowment additivity Weighted proportional rule Priority-augmented weighted proportional rule## JEL Classification

D63 D70 D71## References

- Alcalde, J., del Carmen Marco-Gil, M., Silva, J.A.: The minimal overlap rule revisited. Soc. Choice.Welf.
**31**, 109–128 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Aumann, R.J., Maschler, M.: Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud. J. Econ. Theory
**36**, 195–213 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bergantiños, G., Méndez-Naya, L.: Additivity in bankruptcy problems and in allocation problems. Span. Econ. Rev.
**3**(3), 223–229 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bergantiños, G., Vidal-Puga, J.J.: Additive rules in bankruptcy problems and other related problems. Math. Soc. Sci.
**47**, 87–101 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bergantiños, G., Vidal-Puga, J.J.: Additive rules in discrete allocation problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**172**, 971–978 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Chambers, C.: Asymmetric rules for claims problems without homogeneity. Games Econ. Behav.
**54**(5), 241–260 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Chambers, C., Moreno-Ternero, J.: Taxation and poverty. Soc. Choice Welf. (2015). doi: 10.1007/s00355-015-0905-4
- Chambers, C., Thomson, W.: Group order preservation and the proportional rule for the adjudication of conflicting claims. Math. Soc. Sci.
**44**, 235–252 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Chun, Y.: The proportional solution for rights problems. Math. Soc. Sci.
**15**, 231–246 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Chun, Y., Thomson, W.: Convergence under replication of rules to adjudicate conflicting claims. Games Econ. Behav.
**50**(2), 129–142 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Curiel, I., Maschler, M., Tijs, S.: Bankruptcy games. Zeitschrift für Oper. Res.
**31**(5), A143–A159 (1987)Google Scholar - Dagan, N.: New characterizations of old bankruptcy rules. Soc. Choice Welf.
**13**, 51–59 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Flores-Szwagrzak, K.: Priority classes and weighted constrained equal awards rules for the claims problem. J. Econ. Theory
**160**, 36–55 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Giménez-Gómez, J.-M., Peris, J.E.: A proportional approach to claims problems with a guaranteed minimum. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**232**, 109–116 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hokari, T., Thomson, W.: Claims problems and weighted generalizations of the Talmud rule. Econ. Theory
**21**, 241–261 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hougaard, J.L., Moreno-Ternero, J., Østerdal, L.P.: A unifying framework for the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims. J. Math. Econ.
**48**, 107–114 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hougaard, J.L., Moreno-Ternero, J., Østerdal, L.P.: Rationing in the presence of baselines. Soc. Choice Welf.
**40**, 1047–1066 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ju, B.-G., Miyagawa, E., Sakai, T.: Non-manipulable division rules in claim problems and generalizations. J. Econ. Theory
**232**, 109–116 (2007)Google Scholar - Ju, B.-G., Moreno-Ternero, J.: Fair allocation of disputed properties. CORE discussion paper (2014)Google Scholar
- Kıbrıs, Ö.: A revealed preference analysis of solutions to simple allocation problems. Theory Decis.
**72**, 509–523 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kıbrıs, Ö.: On recursive solutions to simple allocation problems. Theory Decis.
**75**, 449–463 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Marchant, T.: Scale invariance and similar invariance conditions for bankruptcy problems. Soc. Choice Welf.
**31**(5), 693–707 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Moreno-Ternero, J., Roemer, J.: Impartiality, priority, and solidarity in the theory of justice. Econometrica
**74**(5), 1419–1427 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Moreno-Ternero, J., Villar, A.: The TAL-family of rules for bankruptcy problems. Soc. Choice Welf.
**27**, 231–249 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Moulin, H.: Equal or proportional division of a surplus and other methods. Int. J. Game Theory
**16**(5), 161–186 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Moulin, H.: Priority rules and other asymmetric rationing methods. Econometrica
**68**, 643–684 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Moulin, H.: The proportional random allocation of indivisible units. Soc. Choice Welf.
**19**, 381–413 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Moulin, H.: Cost sharing in networks: some open questions. Int. Game Theory Rev.
**15**, 134–144 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - O’Neill, B.: A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud. Math. Soc. Sci.
**2**, 345–371 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Shapley, L.: A value for n-person games. Ann. Math. Stud.
**28**, 307–318 (1953)Google Scholar - Stovall, J.E.: Asymmetric parametric division rules. Games Econ. Behav.
**84**, 87–110 (2014a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stovall, J.E.: Collective rationality and monotone path division rules. J. Econ. Theory
**154**, 1–24 (2014b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thomson, W.: Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey. Math. Soc. Sci.
**45**, 249–297 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thomson, W.: Two families of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims. Soc. Choice Welf.
**31**, 667–692 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thomson, W.: Lorenz rankings of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims. Econ. Theory
**50**, 547–569 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thomson, W.: How Do Divide When There Isn’t Enough: From the Talmud to Game Theory. University of Rochester, Rochester (2014)Google Scholar
- Thomson, W.: Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: an update. Math. Soc. Sci.
**74**, 41–59 (2015a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thomson, W.: Consistent Allocation Rules. University of Rochester, Rochester (2015b)Google Scholar
- Thomson, W.: A consistent compromise between the constrained equal awards and proportional rules. Econ. Theory
**60**(3), 495–520 (2015c)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thomson, W.: For claims problems, another compromise between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules. J. Dyn. Games
**2**(3&4), 363–382 (2015d)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Young, P.: Distributive justice in taxation. J. Econ. Theory
**43**, 321–335 (1987a)Google Scholar - Young, P.: On dividing an amount according to individual claims or liabilities. Math. Oper. Res.
**12**, 398–414 (1987b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar