IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v117y2012i1p227-229.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cooperative models for allocating an object

Author

Listed:
  • Fragnelli, Vito
  • Gagliardo, Stefano

Abstract

This paper starts from a classical fair division situation of allocating an object among a set of agents. The problem is studied from both a cooperative and a bankruptcy point of view, analyzing the fairness properties of the proposed solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Fragnelli, Vito & Gagliardo, Stefano, 2012. "Cooperative models for allocating an object," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 227-229.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:117:y:2012:i:1:p:227-229
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2012.05.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176512002820
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.05.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. ,, 2001. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(6), pages 1157-1160, December.
    2. Fragnelli, Vito & Marina, Maria Erminia, 2010. "An axiomatic characterization of the Baker-Thompson rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 85-87, May.
    3. van den Brink, Rene, 2007. "Null or nullifying players: The difference between the Shapley value and equal division solutions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 767-775, September.
    4. ,, 2001. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(5), pages 1025-1031, October.
    5. Rodica Brânzei & Elena Iñarra & Stef Tijs & José Zarzuelo, 2006. "A Simple Algorithm for the Nucleolus of Airport Profit Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 34(2), pages 259-272, August.
    6. Graham, Daniel A & Marshall, Robert C & Richard, Jean-Francois, 1990. "Differential Payments within a Bidder Coalition and the Shapley Value," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 493-510, June.
    7. Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
    8. Herrero, Carmen & Villar, Antonio, 2001. "The three musketeers: four classical solutions to bankruptcy problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 307-328, November.
    9. S. C. Littlechild & G. Owen, 1973. "A Simple Expression for the Shapley Value in a Special Case," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 370-372, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2013. "A new analysis of a simple model of fair allocation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 393-395.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Balbina Casas-Mendez & Vito Fragnelli & Ignacio Garcìa-Jurado, 2014. "A survey of allocation rules for the museum pass problem," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 38(2), pages 191-205, May.
    2. Louis de Mesnard, 2015. "The three wives problem and Shapley value," Post-Print hal-01091714, HAL.
    3. Oishi, Takayuki & Nakayama, Mikio & Hokari, Toru & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2016. "Duality and anti-duality in TU games applied to solutions, axioms, and axiomatizations," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 44-53.
    4. Jingyi Xue, 2018. "Fair division with uncertain needs," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 105-136, June.
    5. Teresa Estañ & Natividad Llorca & Ricardo Martínez & Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano, 2020. "On the difficulty of budget allocation in claims problems with indivisible items of different prices," ThE Papers 20/09, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    6. Teresa Estañ & Natividad Llorca & Ricardo Martínez & Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano, 2021. "On the Difficulty of Budget Allocation in Claims Problems with Indivisible Items and Prices," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1133-1159, October.
    7. José Alcalde & María Marco & José Silva, 2008. "The minimal overlap rule revisited," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 109-128, June.
    8. Martijn Ketelaars & Peter Borm & Marieke Quant, 2020. "Decentralization and mutual liability rules," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 92(3), pages 577-599, December.
    9. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & Jordi Teixidó-Figueras & Cori Vilella, 2016. "The global carbon budget: a conflicting claims problem," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 693-703, June.
    10. Laurent-Lucchetti, Jérémy, 2009. "Rights on what is left," MPRA Paper 27285, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Emin Karagözoğlu, 2014. "A noncooperative approach to bankruptcy problems with an endogenous estate," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 217(1), pages 299-318, June.
    12. Martínez, Ricardo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Compensation and sacrifice in the probabilistic rationing of indivisible units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 740-751.
    13. William Thomson, 2012. "Lorenz rankings of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(3), pages 547-569, August.
    14. Timoner, Pere & Izquierdo, Josep M., 2016. "Rationing problems with ex-ante conditions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 46-52.
    15. LUTTENS, Roland Iwan, 2010. "Lower bounds rule!," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2010069, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    16. Biung-Ghi Ju & Juan Moreno-Ternero, 2011. "Progressive and merging-proof taxation," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(1), pages 43-62, February.
    17. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Giovanni Ponti, 2010. "On the adjudication of conflicting claims: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(1), pages 145-179, January.
    18. Hokari, Toru & Thomson, William, 2008. "On properties of division rules lifted by bilateral consistency," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1057-1071, December.
    19. Wulf Gaertner & Lars Schwettmann, 2017. "Burden sharing in deficit countries: a questionnaire-experimental investigation," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 113-144, June.
    20. B. Dietzenbacher & A. Estévez-Fernández & P. Borm & R. Hendrickx, 2021. "Proportionality, equality, and duality in bankruptcy problems with nontransferable utility," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 301(1), pages 65-80, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Knaster procedure; Bankruptcy problems; Cooperative games;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:117:y:2012:i:1:p:227-229. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.