The two-agent claims-truncated proportional rule has no consistent extension: a constructive proof
From MaRDI portal
Publication:1934669
DOI10.1016/J.ECONLET.2007.04.022zbMath1255.91193OpenAlexW2069571844WikidataQ59972761 ScholiaQ59972761MaRDI QIDQ1934669
Publication date: 29 January 2013
Published in: Economics Letters (Search for Journal in Brave)
Full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.04.022
Resource and cost allocation (including fair division, apportionment, etc.) (91B32) Decision theory for games (91A35)
Related Items (7)
Consistent cost sharing ⋮ Random conjugates of bankruptcy rules ⋮ Equal Area Rule to Adjudicate Conflicting Claims ⋮ A characterization of a family of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims ⋮ Compromising between the proportional and equal division values ⋮ Two families of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims ⋮ Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: an update
Cites Work
- On properties of division rules lifted by bilateral consistency
- Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud
- A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud
- Bilateral comparisons and consistent fair division rules in the context of bankruptcy problems
- Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey.
- Claims problems and weighted generalizations of the Talmud rule
- The three musketeers: four classical solutions to bankruptcy problems.
- On Dividing an Amount According to Individual Claims or Liabilities
- A quadratic programming model for product configuration optimization
- Priority Rules and Other Asymmetric Rationing Methods
This page was built for publication: The two-agent claims-truncated proportional rule has no consistent extension: a constructive proof