Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims

32Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

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).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

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.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free