Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims

K.G.M. Bosmans, L. Lauwers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)791-807
Number of pages17
JournalInternational Journal of Game Theory
Volume40
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2011

Keywords

  • Claims 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
  • BANKRUPTCY

Cite this