The TAL-family of rules for bankruptcy problems

Social Choice and Welfare

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 231-249

  Moreno Ternero, Juan D ^a   Villar, Antonio ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÁLAGA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALICANTE   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747474575     PISSN: 01761714     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00355-006-0121-3     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Atkinson AB (1970) On the measurement of inequality. J Econ Theory 2:244-263
2. Aumann RJ, Maschler M (1985) Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud. J Econ Theory 36:195-213
3. Chakravarty SR (1999) Measuring inequality: the axiomatic approach. In: Silber J (ed) The handbook of income inequality measurement, chap 4. Kluwer, Dordrecht
4. Curiel IJ, Maschler M, Tijs SH (1987) Bankruptcy games. Zeitschrift für Operat Res 31:A143-A159
5. Dagan N (1996) New characterizations of old bankruptcy rules. Soc Choice Welfare 13:51-59
6. Dasgupta PS, Sen AK, Starret D (1973) Notes on the measurement of inequality. J Econ Theory 6:180-187
7. Dominguez D, Thomson W (2006) A new solution to the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims. Econ Theory 28:283-307
8. Herrero C, Villar A (2001) The three musketeers: four classical solutions to bankruptcy problems. Math Soc Sci 42:307-328
9. Herrero C, Villar A (2002) Sustainability in bankruptcy problems. TOP 10(2):261-273
10. Hokari T, Thomson W (2003) Claims problems and weighted generalizations of the Talmud rule. Econ Theory 21:241-261
11. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica 47:263-291
12. Moreno-Ternero J, Roemer J (2004) Impartiality, solidarity, and priority in the theory of justice. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1477
13. Moreno-Ternero J, Villar A (2004) The Talmud rule and the securement of agents' awards. Math Soc Sci 47:245-257
14. Moreno-Ternero J, Villar A (2005) On the relative equitability of a family of taxation rules. J Public Econ Theory (forthcoming)
15. Moreno-Ternero J, Villar A (2006) New characterizations of a classical bankruptcy rule. Rev Econ Des (forthcoming)
16. Moulin H (1987) Equal or proportional division of a surplus, and other methods. Int J Game Theory 16:161-186
17. Moulin H (2000) Priority rules and other asymmetric rationing methods. Econometrica 68:643-684
18. Moulin H (2002) Axiomatic cost and surplus-sharing. In: Arrow K, Sen A, Suzumura K (eds) The handbook of social choice and welfare, vol 1, chap 6. North-Holland, New York
19. O'Neill B (1982) A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud. Math Soc Sci 2:345-371
20. Rostchild M, Stiglitz JE (1973) Some further results on the measurement of inequality. J Econ Theory 2:225-243
21. Thomson W (1987) Monotonic allocation mechanisms. Mimeo, University of Rochester
22. Thomson W (1996) Consistent allocation rules, RCER Working paper 418, University of Rochester
23. Thomson W (2000) Condorcet lecture. In: International meeting of the society for social choice and welfare. University of Alicante.
24. Thomson W (2003) Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey. Math Soc Sci 45:249-297
25. Yeh CH (2005) Protective properties and the constrained equal awards rule for claims problems. Soc Choice Welfare (forthcoming)
26. Yeh CH (2006) Secured lower bound, composition up, and minimal rights first for bankruptcy problems. Mimeo, Inst Econ, Academia Sinica, Taiwan
27. Young P (1987) On dividing an amount according to individual claims or liabilities. Math Operat Res 12:398-414
28. Young P (1988) Distributive justice in taxation. J Econ Theory 44:321-335
29. Young P (1994) Equity. Princeton University Press, Princeton