Two families of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims
نویسنده
چکیده
We define two families of rules to adjudicate conflicting claims. The first family contains the constrained equal awards, constrained equal losses, Talmud, and minimal overlap rules. The second family, which also contains the constrained equal awards and constrained equal losses rules, is obtained from the first one by exchanging, for each problem, how well agents with relatively larger claims are treated as compared to agents with relatively smaller claims. In each case, we identify the subfamily of consistent rules. JEL classification number: C79; D63; D74 Key-words: claims problems; constrained equal awards rule; constrained equal losses rule; Talmud rule; minimal overlap rule; ICI rules; CIC rules; consistency. ∗I gratefully acknowledge support from NSF under grant SES-0214691. I also thank Tarık Kara, Cori Vilella, and in particular Juan Moreno-Ternero, Rodrigo Velez, and a referee, for their comments. This paper grew out of a section of the Condorcet Lecture I delivered at the VI-th International Meeting of the Social Choice and Welfare Society, Alicante, July 2000. filename: ICICIC.tex
منابع مشابه
Application of the Bankruptcy Theory and Conflicting Claims on Water Resources Allocation of Zayanderud
Solving the Water conflict and optimal allocation of common water resources are the most important service of cooperative game theory to water economics. Zayandehrud basin is the most important disputed basin in several neighboring provinces in the first class basin of Iran's central plateau. The purpose of this research is to use the game theory with application of Bankruptcy approach (conflic...
متن کاملLorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims
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 ...
متن کامل2011 / 71 A unifying framework for the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims Jens
In a recent paper, Thomson and Yeh [Operators for the adjudication of conflicting claims, Journal of Economic Theory 143 (2008) 177-198] introduced the concept of operators on the space of rules for the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims. They focussed on three operators in order to uncover the structure of such a space. In this paper, we generalize their analysis upon presenting and st...
متن کاملA characterization of a family of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims
We consider the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims, and characterize the family of rules satisfying four standard invariance requirements, homogeneity, two composition properties, and consistency. It takes as point of departure the characterization of the family of two-claimant rules satisfying the first three requirements, and describes the restrictions imposed by consistency on this f...
متن کاملClaims and Jurisdictions in Medical Matters Disputes
Medical claims are all disputes that are somehow related to the medical and related matters so its subject is wide-ranging. These are civil, criminal and diciplinair medical cases, and due to the multy natures of such cases, we are likely to see numerous authorities to them. Furthermore, here expert medical expertise and expert opinion play an important role, but the rules are somewhat conflict...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- Social Choice and Welfare
دوره 31 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2008