Skip to main content
Log in

On fair compensation

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyses the problems arising in the pure exchange fair division model, when some dimensions of the resources are personal, fixed, and cannot be redistributed. The remaining resources must then be allocated in a compensatory way. A set of desirable normative properties is defined. No-envy satisfies these properties, but is not generally non-empty in this setting and other criteria are examined, for which existence results are given. General impossibility results obtain. In particular, it is generally impossible to compensate fully and only for differential personal resources, when preferences differ.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alkan, A., Demange, G. and Gale, D.: 1991, ‘Fair allocations of indivisible goods and criteria of justice’,Econometrica 59(4), 1023–1040.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arneson, R. J.: 1989, ‘Equality and equal opportunity for welfare’,Philosophical Studies 56, 77–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aumann, R. and Maschler, M.: 1985, ‘Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud’,Journal of Economic Theory 36, 195–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Border, K. C.: 1985,Fixed Point Theorems with Applications to Economics and Game Theory, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champsaur, P. and Laroque, G.: 1981, ‘Fair allocations in large economies’,Journal of Economic Theory 25, 269–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun, Y.: 1988, ‘The proportional solution for rights problems’,Mathematical Social Sciences 15, 231–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A.: 1989, ‘On the currency of egalitarian justice’,Ethics 99, 906–944.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, T. E.: 1975, ‘A revised concept of distributional equity’,Journal of Economic Theory 11, 94–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantaras, D. and Thomson, W.: 1990, ‘A refinement and extension of the no-envy concept’,Economic Letters 33, 217–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R.: 1981, ‘What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources’,Philosophy and Public Affairs 10(4), 283–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, A. and Kirman, A.: 1974, ‘Fairness and envy’,American Economic Review 64(6), 995–1005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleurbaey, M.: 1992, ‘The requisites of equal opportunity’, forthcoming in W. Barnett, H. Moulin, M. Salles and N. Schofield, eds.,Advances in Social Choice Theory and Cooperative Games, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleurbaey, M.: 1993, ‘Three solutions for the compensation problem’, forthcoming inJournal of Economic Theory.

  • Fleurbaey, M. and Maniquet, F.: 1993, ‘Fair allocations with unequal skills’, mimeo.

  • Foley, D.K.: 1967, ‘Resource allocation and the public sector’,Yale Economic Essays 7, 45–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. and Sussangkarn, C.: 1983, ‘Dealing with envy’,Journal of Public Economics 22, 103–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsayni, J. C.: 1976,Essays on Ethics, Social Behavior, and Scientific Explanation, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iturbe, I. and Nieto, J.: 1992, ‘On fair allocations and monetary compensations’, mimeo.

  • Kolm, S. C.: 1972,Justice et Equité, Editions du CNRS, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolm, S. C.: 1991, ‘The ethical economics of envy’, mimeo.

  • Littlechild, S. C. and Owen, G.: 1973, ‘A simple expression for the Shaley value in a special case’,Management Science 20, 370–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskin, E.: 1987, ‘On the fair allocation of indivisible goods’, in G. R. Feiwel (Ed.),Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy, Macmillan Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulin, H.: 1991, ‘Stand alone and unanimity tests: A reexamination of fair division’, Workshop on Ethics and Economics, University of Siena, July 1991.

  • O'Neill, B.: 1982, ‘A problem of rights arbitration in the Talmud’,Mathematical Social Sciences 2, 345–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pazner, E.: 1977, ‘Pitfalls in the theory of fairness’,Journal of Economic Theory 14, 458–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pazner, E. and Schmeidler, D.: 1974, ‘A difficulty in the concept of fairness’,Review of Economic Studies 41, 441–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pazner, E. and Schmeidler, D.: 1978, ‘Egalitarian-equivalent allocations: A new concept of economic equity’,Quarterly Journal of Economics 92, 671–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J.: 1971,A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J. E.: 1985a, ‘Equality of talent’,Economics and Philosophy 1, 151–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J. E.: 1985b, ‘A note on interpersonal comparability and the theory of fairness’, Working Paper No. 261, Department of Economics, University of California, Davis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J. E.: 1986, ‘Equality of resources implies equality of welfare’,Quarterly Journal of Economics 101, 751–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A.: 1987,On Ethics and Economics, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, L. G.: 1983, ‘Large indivisibles: An analysis with respect to price equilibrium and fairness’,Econometrica 51, 939–954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, W.: 1990, ‘Equity concepts in economics’, mimeo, University of Rochester.

  • Thomson, W. and Varian, H.: 1985, ‘Theories of justice based on symmetry, in L. Hurwicz, D. Schmeidler and H. Sonnenschein (Eds.),Social Goals and Social Organizations, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Parijs, P.: 1990, ‘Equal endowments as undominated diversity’,Recherches Economiques de Louvain 56, 327–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian, H.: 1974, ‘Equity, envy and efficiency’,Journal of Economic Theory 9, 63–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian, H.: 1975, ‘Distributive justice, welfare economics, and the theory of fairness’,Philosophy of Public Affairs 4(3), 223–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, H. P.: 1987, ‘On dividing an amount according to individual claims or liabilities’,Mathematics of Operations Research 12, 398–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeckhauser, R.: 1974, ‘Risk spreading and distribution’, in H. M. Hochman and G. E. Peterson (Eds.),Redistribution through Public Choice, New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fleurbaey, M. On fair compensation. Theor Decis 36, 277–307 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079932

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079932

Keywords

Navigation