Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claimsReport as inadecuate




Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.

International Journal of Game Theory

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 791–807

First Online: 05 January 2011Accepted: 02 December 2010

Abstract

Consider the following nine rules for adjudicating conflicting claims: the proportional, constrained equal awards, constrained equal losses, Talmud, Piniles’, constrained egalitarian, adjusted proportional, random arrival, and minimal overlap rules. For each pair of rules in this list, we examine whether or not the two rules are Lorenz comparable. We allow the comparison to depend upon whether the amount to divide is larger or smaller than the half-sum of claims. In addition, we provide Lorenz-based characterizations of the constrained equal awards, constrained equal losses, Talmud, Piniles’, constrained egalitarian, and minimal overlap rules.

KeywordsClaims problem Bankruptcy Taxation Lorenz dominance Proportional rule Constrained equal awards rule Constrained equal losses rule Talmud rule Piniles’ rule Constrained egalitarian rule Adjusted proportional rule Random arrival rule Minimal overlap rule An earlier version of this paper was circulated in January 2007 CES Discussion Paper 07.05, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

JEL ClassificationD63  Download to read the full article text



Author: Kristof Bosmans - Luc Lauwers

Source: https://link.springer.com/



DOWNLOAD PDF




Related documents