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. © 2011 The Author(s).
Author supplied keywords
Cite
CITATION STYLE
Bosmans, K., & Lauwers, L. (2011). Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims. International Journal of Game Theory, 40(4), 791–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00182-010-0269-z
Register to see more suggestions
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.