Protective Properties and the Constrained Equal Awards Rule for Claims Problems: A Note (original) (raw)

Abstract

We investigate the implications of two protective properties, sustainability and exemption, for the resolution of conflicting claims. Under the properties, agents with sufficiently small claims in relation to the other claims and to the amount available are fully reimbursed. Our main results are three characterizations of the constrained equal awards rule. Namely, (1) it is the only rule satisfying sustainability and claims monotonicity, (2) it is the only rule satisfying sustainability and super-modularity, and (3) it is the only rule satisfying exemption, order preservation, and consistency.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

• Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
• Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
• Cancel anytime View plans

Buy Now

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

• Aumann RJ, Maschler M (1985) Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud. J Econ Theory 36:195–213
  Article Google Scholar
• Chun Y, Schummer J, Thomson W (2001) Constrained egalitarianism: a new solution to claims problems. Seoul J Econ 14:269–297
  Google Scholar
• Dagan N (1996) New characterization of old bankruptcy rules. Soc Choice Welfare 13:51–59
  Article Google Scholar
• Dagan N, Serrano R, Volij O (1997) A noncooperative view of consistent bankruptcy rules. Games Econ Behav 18:55–72
  Article Google Scholar
• Herrero C, Villar A (2001) The three musketeers: four classical solutions to bankruptcy problems. Math Soc Sci 42:307–328
  Article Google Scholar
• Herrero C, Villar A (2002) Sustainability in bankruptcy problems. TOP 10:261–273
  Article MathSciNet Google Scholar
• Moulin H (2000) Priority rules and other asymmetric rationing methods. Econometrica 68:643–684
  Article Google Scholar
• O’Neill B (1982) A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud. Math Soc Sci 2:345–371
  Article Google Scholar
• Thomson W (2000) Consistent allocation rules. University of Rochester, Rochester, Mimeo
  Google Scholar
• Thomson W (2001) How to divide when there isn’t enough. Book manuscript, University of Rochester, Rochester
  Google Scholar
• Thomson W (2003) Axiomatic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey. Math Soc Sci 45:249–297
  Article Google Scholar
• Thomson W, Yeh C-H (2001) Minimal rights, maximal claims, and duality for division rules. University of Rochester, Rochester, Mimeo
  Google Scholar
• Young P (1987) On dividing an amount according to individual claims or liabilities. Math Oper Res 12:398–414
  Article Google Scholar
• Young P (1988) Distributive justice in taxation. J Econ Theory 43:321–335
  Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 115, Taiwan
   Chun-Hsien Yeh

Corresponding author

Correspondence toChun-Hsien Yeh.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yeh, CH. Protective Properties and the Constrained Equal Awards Rule for Claims Problems: A Note.Soc Choice Welfare 27, 221–230 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-006-0122-2

Download citation

• Received: 30 June 2003
• Accepted: 27 September 2004
• Published: 08 April 2006
• Issue date: October 2006
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-006-0122-2

Keywords