On properties of division rules lifted by bilateral consistency

Journal of Mathematical Economics

Volumn 44, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 1057-1071

  Hokari, Toru ^a   Thomson, William ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Claims problems; Consistency; Constrained equal awards rule; Constrained equal losses rule; Lifting

Indexed keywords

EID: 52949148568     PISSN: 03044068     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmateco.2008.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Aumann R., and Maschler M. Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud. Journal of Economic Theory 36 (1985) 195-213
2. Chambers C., and Thomson W. Group order preservation and the proportional rule for bankruptcy problems. Mathematical Social Sciences 44 (2002) 235-252
3. Chun Y. Equivalence of axioms for bankruptcy problems. International Journal of Game Theory 28 (1999) 511-520
4. Chun Y., Schummer J., and Thomson W. Constrained egalitarianism: a new solution to bankruptcy problems. Seoul Journal of Economics 14 (2001) 269-297
5. Curiel I., Maschler M., and Tijs S.H. Bankruptcy games. Zeitschrift für Operations Research 31 (1987) 143-A159
6. Dagan N., Serrano R., and Volij O. A non-cooperative view of consistent bankruptcy rules. Games and Economic Behavior 18 (1997) 55-72
7. Dagan N., and Volij O. The bankruptcy problem: a cooperative bargaining approach. Mathematical Social Sciences 26 (1993) 287-297
8. Dagan N., and Volij O. Bilateral comparisons and consistent fair division rules in the context of bankruptcy problems. International Journal of Game Theory 26 (1997) 11-25
9. Herrero C., and Villar A. The three musketeers: four classical solutions to bankruptcy problems. Mathematical Social Sciences 39 (2001) 307-328
10. Herrero C., and Villar A. Sustainability in bankruptcy problems. TOP 10 (2002) 261-273
11. Hokari T., and Thomson W. Claims problems and weighted generalizations of the Talmud rule. Economic Theory 21 (2003) 241-261
12. Moulin H. Priority rules and other asymmetric rationing methods. Econometrica 68 (2000) 643-684
13. Moulin H. Axiomatic cost and surplus sharing. In: Arrow K., and Suzumura K. (Eds). Handbook of Social Choice (2002), North-Holland, Amsterdam 290-357
14. O'Neill B. A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud. Mathematical Social Sciences 2 (1982) 345-371
15. Thomson W. Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey. Mathematical Social Sciences 45 (2003) 249-297
16. Thomson W. Options monotonic allocation rules (2003), Mimeo
17. Thomson W. Consistent allocation rules (2006), Mimeo
18. Thomson, W., 2006b. How to Divide When there isn't Enough. Book Manuscript.
19. Thomson, W., 2007. On the existence of consistent rules to adjudicate conflicting claims: a geometric approach. Review of Economic Design 11, 225-251.
20. Thomson, W., Yeh, C.-H., in press. Operators for the adjudication of conflicting claims. Mimeo. Journal of Economic Theory.
21. Young P. On dividing an amount according to individual claims or liabilities. Mathematics of Operations Research 12 (1987) 398-414
22. Young, P., 1994. Equity: In Theory and Practice. Princeton University Press, Princeton.