 A characterization of a family of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claimsGames and Economic Behavior, 2013, vol. 82, issue C, 157-168 Abstract: 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 family and the further implications of this requirement for problems with three or more claimants. The proof, which is an alternative to Moulinʼs original proof [Moulin, H., 2000. Priority rules and other asymmetric rationing methods. Econometrica 68, 643–684], is based on a general method of constructing consistent extensions of two-claimant rules [Thomson, W., 2007. On the existence of consistent rules to adjudicate conflicting claims: a constructive geometric approach. Rev. Econ. Design 11, 225–251], which exploits geometric properties of paths of awards, seen in their entirety. Keywords: Claims problems; Consistent extensions; Proportional rule; CEA rule; CEL rule (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:82:y:2013:i:c:p:157-168 DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2013.07.002 Access Statistics for this article Games and Economic Behavior is currently edited by E. Kalai More articles in Games and Economic Behavior from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.