Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims

Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims

0.00 Avg rating0 Votes
Article ID: iaor201110531
Volume: 40
Issue: 4
Start Page Number: 791
End Page Number: 807
Publication Date: Nov 2011
Journal: International Journal of Game Theory
Authors: ,
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.

Reviews

Required fields are marked *. Your email address will not be published.