Sequential sharing rules for river sharing problems

We analyse the redistribution of a resource amongst agents who have claims to the resource and who are ordered linearly. A well known example of this particular situation is the river sharing problem. We exploit the linear order of agents to transform the river sharing problem to a sequence of two-agent river sharing problems. These reduced problems are mathematically equivalent to bankruptcy problems and can therefore be solved using any bankruptcy rule. Our proposed class of solutions, that we call sequential sharing rules, solves the river sharing problem. Our approach extends the bankruptcy literature to settings with a sequential structure of both the agents and the resource to be shared. In the paper, we first characterise the class of sequential sharing rules. Subsequently, we apply sequential sharing rules based on four classical bankruptcy rules, assess their properties, provide two characterisations of one specific rule, and compare sequential sharing rules with three alternative solutions to the river sharing problem.     

On the adjudication of conflicting claims: an experimental study

This paper reports an experimental study on three well-known solutions for problems of adjudicating conflicting claims: the constrained equal awards, the proportional, and the constrained equal losses rules. We first let subjects play three games designed such that the unique equilibrium allocation coincides with the recommendation of one of these three rules. In addition, we let subjects play an additional game that has the property that all (and only) strategy profiles in which players coordinate on the same rule constitute a strict Nash equilibrium. While in the first three games subjects’ play easily converges to the unique equilibrium rule, in the last game the proportional rule overwhelmingly prevails as a coordination device, especially when we frame the game as an hypothetical bankruptcy situation. We also administered a questionnaire to a different group of students, asking them to act as impartial arbitrators to solve (among others) the same problems played in the lab. Also in this case, respondents were sensitive to the framing of the questions, but the proportional rule was selected by the vast majority of respondents.     

Random conjugates of bankruptcy rules

This article introduces and analyzes random conjugates of bankruptcy rules. A random conjugate is a rule which is derived from the definition of the underlying rule for two-claimant problems. For example, the random conjugate of the Aumann–Maschler rule yields an extension of concede-and-divide: the basic solution for bankruptcy problems with two claimants. Using the concept of random conjugates an alternative characterization of the proportional rule is provided. It turns out that the procedural definition of a random conjugate extends several of the properties of the underlying rule for two-claimant problems to the general domain of problems with an arbitrary number of claimants.     

Rationing in the presence of baselines

We analyze a general model of rationing in which agents have baselines, in addition to claims against the (insufficient) endowment of the good to be allocated. Many real-life problems fit this general model (e.g., bankruptcy with prioritized claims, resource allocation in the public health care sector, water distribution in drought periods). We introduce (and characterize) a natural class of allocation methods for this model. Any method within the class is associated with a rule in the standard rationing model, and we show that if the latter obeys some focal properties, the former obeys them too.     

The TAL-Family of Rules for Bankruptcy Problems

This paper analyzes a family of rules for bankruptcy problems that generalizes the Talmud rule (T) and encompasses both the constrained equal-awards rule (A) and the constrained equal-losses rule (L). The family is defined by means of a parameter that can be interpreted as a measure of the distributive power of the rule. We provide a systematic study of the structural properties of the rules within the family and its connections with the existing literature.     

The replacement principle in economies with indivisible goods

 We consider the problem of allocating a list of indivisible goods and some amount of an infinitely divisible good among agents with equal rights on these resources, and investigate the implications of the following requirement on allocation rules: when the preferences of some of the agents change, all agents whose preferences are fixed should (weakly) gain, or they should all (weakly) lose. This condition is an application of a general principle of solidarity discussed in Thomson (1990b) under the name “replacement principle”. We look for selections from the no-envy solution satisfying this property. We show that in the general case, when the number of objects is arbitrary, there is no such selection. However, in the one-object case (a single prize), up to Pareto-indifference, there is only one selection from the no-envy solution satisfying the property. Such a solution always selects an envy-free allocation at which the winner of the prize is indifferent between his bundle and the losers’ common bundle. Received: 15 May 1995 / Accepted: 5 June 1996     

A new approach for bounding awards in bankruptcy problems

The solution for the contested garment problem, proposed in the Babylonic Talmud, suggests that each agent should receive at least some part of the resources whenever the claim exceeds the available amount. In this context, we propose a new method to define lower bounds on awards, an idea that has underlied the theoretical analysis of bankruptcy problems from its beginning (O’Neill, Math Soc Sci 2:345–371, 1982) to present day (Dominguez and Thomson, Econ Theory 28:283–307, 2006). Specifically, starting from the fact that a society establishes its own set of commonly accepted equity principles, our proposal ensures to each agent the smallest amount she gets according to all the admissible rules. We analyze its recursive application for different sets of equity principles.     

Allocating multiple estates among agents with single-peaked preferences

We consider the problem of allocating multiple social endowments (estates) of a perfectly divisible commodity among a group of agents with single-peaked preferences when each agent’s share can come from at most one estate. We inquire if well-known single-estate rules, such as the Uniform rule, the Proportional rule or the fixed-path rules can be coupled with a matching rule so as to achieve efficiency in the multi-estate level. On the class of problems where all agents have symmetric preferences, any efficient single-estate rule can be extended to an efficient multi-estate rule. If we allow asymmetric preferences however, this is no more the case. For nondictatorial single-estate rules that satisfy efficiency, strategy proofness, consistency, and resource monotonicity, an efficient extension to multiple estates is impossible. A similar impossibility also holds for single-estate rules that satisfy efficiency, peak-only, and a weak fairness property. We would like to express our gratitude to Bhaskar Dutta, Semih Koray, Hervé Moulin, and Yuntong Wang as well as an associate editor and two anonymous referees of this journal for detailed comments and suggestions. We also thank the seminar participants at Bilkent University, Indian Statistical Institute, Bilgi University, University of Warwick, ASSET 2003, and BWED XXVI.     

Shapley–Shubik methods in cost sharing problems with technological cooperation

In the discrete cost sharing model with technological cooperation (Bahel and Trudeau in Int J Game Theory 42:439–460, 2013a), we study the implications of a number of properties that strengthen the well-known dummy axiom. Our main axiom, which requires that costless units of demands do not affect the cost shares, is used to characterize two classes of rules. Combined with anonymity and a specific stability property, this requirement picks up sharing methods that allow the full compensation of at most one technological contribution. If instead we strengthen the well-known dummy property to include agents whose technological contribution is offset by the cost of their demand, we are left with an adaptation of the Shapley–Shubik method that treats technologies as private and rewards their contributions. Our results provide two interesting axiomatizations for the adaptations of the Shapley–Shubik rule to our framework.     

A necessary and sufficient condition for stable matching rules to be strategy-proof

We study one-to-one matching problems and analyze conditions on preference domains that admit the existence of stable and strategy-proof rules. In this context, when a preference domain is unrestricted, it is known that no stable rule is strategy-proof. We introduce the notion of the no-detour condition, and show that under this condition, there is a stable and group strategy-proof rule. In addition, we show that when the men’s preference domain is unrestricted, the no-detour condition is also a necessary condition for the existence of stable and strategy-proof rules. As a result, under the assumption that the men’s preference domain is unrestricted, the following three statements are equivalent: (i) a preference domain satisfies the no-detour condition, (ii) there is a stable and group strategy-proof rule, (iii) there is a stable and strategy-proof rule.     

A Note on the Separability Principle in Economies with Single-Peaked Preferences

We consider the problem of allocating an infinitely divisible commodity among a group of agents with single-peaked preferences. A rule that has played a central role in the analysis of the problem is the so-called uniform rule. Chun (2001) proves that the uniform rule is the only rule satisfying Pareto optimality, no-envy, separability, and Ω-continuity. We obtain an alternative characterization by using a weak replication-invariance condition, called duplication-invariance, instead of Ω-continuity. Furthermore, we prove that the equal division lower bound and separability imply no-envy. Using this result, we strengthen one of Chun’s (2001) characterizations of the uniform rule by showing that the uniform rule is the only rule satisfying Pareto optimality, the equal division lower bound, separability, and either Ω-continuity or duplication-invariance.     

Rationalizations of Condorcet-consistent rules via distances of hamming type

In voting, the main idea of the distance rationalizability framework is to view the voters’ preferences as an imperfect approximation to some kind of consensus. This approach, which is deeply rooted in the social choice literature, allows one to define (“rationalize”) voting rules via a consensus class of elections and a distance: a candidate is said to be an election winner if she is ranked first in one of the nearest (with respect to the given distance) consensus elections. It is known that many classic voting rules can be distance-rationalized. In this article, we provide new results on distance rationalizability of several Condorcet-consistent voting rules. In particular, we distance-rationalize the Young rule and Maximin using distances similar to the Hamming distance. It has been claimed that the Young rule can be rationalized by the Condorcet consensus class and the Hamming distance; we show that this claim is incorrect and, in fact, this consensus class and distance yield a new rule, which has not been studied before. We prove that, similarly to the Young rule, this new rule has a computationally hard winner determination problem.     

An impossibility theorem for matching problems

This paper studies the possibility of strategy-proof rules yielding satisfactory solutions to matching problems. Alcalde and Barberá (Econ Theory 4:417–435, 1994) and Sönmez (Econ Des 1:365–380, 1994) show that efficient and individually rational matching rules are manipulable. We pursue the possibility of strategy-proof matching rules by relaxing efficiency to the weaker condition of respect for unanimity. First, we prove that a strategy-proof rule exists that is individually rational and respects unanimity. However, this rule is unreasonable in the sense that mutually best pairs of agents are matched on only rare occasions. In order to explore the possibility of better matching rules, we introduce a natural condition of “respect for 2-unanimity.” Respect for 2-unanimity states that a mutually best pair of agents should be matched, and an agent wishing to being unmatched should be unmatched. Our second result is negative. Secondly, we prove that no strategy-proof rule exists that respects 2-unanimity. This result implies Roth (Math Oper Res 7:617–628, 1962; J Econ Theory 36:277–288, 1985) showing that stable rules are manipulable.     

New characterizations of old bankruptcy rules

This paper presents axiomatic characterizations of two bankruptcy rules discussed in Jewish legal literature: the Constrained Equal Awards rule and the Contested Garment principle (the latter is defined only for two-creditor problems.) A major property in these characterizations is independence of irrelevant claims, which requires that if an individual claim exceeds the total to be allocated the excess claim should be considered irrelevant.The author gratefully acknowledges helpful conversations with Oscar Volij.     

An incompatibility between recursive unanimity and strategy-proofness in two-sided matching problems

In this article, we study the incompatibilities for the properties on matching rules in two-sided many-to-one matching problems under responsive preferences. We define a new property called respect for recursive unanimity. This property requires that if every agent matches with its first choice among its really possible choices that are based on a recursive procedure like the well-known top trading cycles algorithm, then we should respect it. More precisely, given a matching problem, we exclude the agents whose first choices are satisfied without any discrepancy among them, and consider the restricted matching problems of the remaining agents. If we reach a state in which all agents are excluded by repeating this procedure, then we should respect the outcome. This property is weaker than stability and is stronger than respect for unanimity (that is also known as weak unanimity). We show that there are no strategy-proof matching rules that respect recursive unanimity.     

Equity and efficiency in non-convex economies

The objective of this paper is to consider the following question. Does the presence of increasing returns introduce a fundamental trade-off between equity and efficiency objectives? We show that if the no-envy notion of Foley (1967) is taken as the equity criterion and Pareto optimality as the efficiency criterion, then the answer is yes; there exist economies with increasing returns and well-behaved preferences (and no agent-specific inputs) in which there do not exist any envy-free and Pareto optimal allocations. We also propose a weakening of the no-envy criterion and prove that this weaker equity notion is compatible with Pareto optimality in general non-convex economies.     

Anonymity in large societies

In a social choice model with an infinite number of agents, there may occur “equal size” coalitions that a preference aggregation rule should treat in the same manner. We introduce an axiom of equal treatment with respect to a measure of coalition size and explore its interaction with common axioms of social choice. We show that, provided the measure space is sufficiently rich in coalitions of the same measure, the new axiom is the natural extension of the concept of anonymity, and in particular plays a similar role in the characterization of preference aggregation rules.     

Vetoer and tie-making group theorems for indifference-transitive aggregation rules

A binary relation is indifference-transitive if its symmetric part satisfies the transitivity axiom. We investigated the properties of Arrovian aggregation rules that generate acyclic and indifference-transitive social preferences. We proved that there exists unique vetoer in the rule if the number of alternatives is greater than or equal to four. We provided a classification of decisive structures in aggregation rules where the number of alternatives is equal to three. Furthermore, we showed that the coexistence of a vetoer and a tie-making group, which generates social indifference, is inevitable if the rule satisfies the indifference unanimity. The relationship between the vetoer and the tie-making group, i.e., whether the vetoer belongs to the tie-making group or not, determines the power structure of the rule.     

Fair and group strategy-proof good allocation with money

We completely characterize the class of fair and group strategy-proof mechanisms. We consider two notions of fairness, anonymity in welfare and no-envy. Both fairness axioms, when applied with strategy-proofness, imply decision efficiency, and lead to the same class of group strategy-proof mechanisms (where the group size is restricted to two). We find that the only feasible mechanism satisfying a mild zero transfer axiom, in this class, is the Pivotal mechanism.     

The minimal overlap rule revisited

This paper provides an analysis of the Minimal Overlap Rule, a solution for bankruptcy problems introduced by O’Neill (1982). We point out that this rule can be understood as a composition of Ibn Ezra’s proposal and the recommendation given by the Constrained Equal Loss Rule. Following an interpretation of bankruptcy problems in terms of TU games, we show that the Minimal Overlap Value is the unique solution for bankruptcy games which satisfies Anonymity and Core Transition Responsiveness.