IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v113y2019icp515-532.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relations among the central rules in bankruptcy problems: A strategic perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Tsay, Min-Hung
  • Yeh, Chun-Hsien

Abstract

We consider the “bankruptcy problem”, in which the liquidation value of a bankrupt firm has to be allocated among its creditors. By applying the Nash program to justify a bilaterally consistent rule, bilateral negotiations are traditionally resolved by applying the rule (Dagan et al., 1997; Chang and Hu, 2008). We introduce games in which bilateral negotiations are resolved by non-cooperative bargaining procedures and show that these games strategically justify the constrained equal awards rule, the constrained equal losses rule, the proportional rule, and the Talmud rule. By focusing on the differences in the non-cooperative bargaining procedures that capture the spirit of the rules, our results unveil novel connections among them.

Suggested Citation

  • Tsay, Min-Hung & Yeh, Chun-Hsien, 2019. "Relations among the central rules in bankruptcy problems: A strategic perspective," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 515-532.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:113:y:2019:i:c:p:515-532
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2018.10.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825618301751
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2018.10.012?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. Roberto Serrano, 2005. "Fifty years of the Nash program, 1953-2003," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 29(2), pages 219-258, May.
    2. Ju, Yuan & Chun, Youngsub & van den Brink, René, 2014. "Auctioning and selling positions: A non-cooperative approach to queueing conflicts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 33-45.
    3. Thomson, William & Yeh, Chun-Hsien, 2008. "Operators for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 177-198, November.
    4. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    5. Dagan, Nir & Serrano, Roberto & Volij, Oscar, 1997. "A Noncooperative View of Consistent Bankruptcy Rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 55-72, January.
    6. Young, H. P., 1988. "Distributive justice in taxation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 321-335, April.
    7. Serrano, Roberto & Vohra, Rajiv, 2002. "Bargaining and Bargaining Sets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 292-308, May.
    8. Chang, Chih & Hu, Cheng-Cheng, 2008. "A non-cooperative interpretation of the f-just rules of bankruptcy problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 133-144, May.
    9. Nir Dagan, 1996. "New characterizations of old bankruptcy rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(1), pages 51-59, January.
    10. Serrano, Roberto, 1995. "Strategic bargaining, surplus sharing problems and the nucleolus," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 319-329.
    11. Janusz A. Ordover & Ariel Rubinstein, 1986. "A Sequential Concession Game with Asymmetric Information," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(4), pages 879-888.
    12. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    13. Hervé Moulin, 2000. "Priority Rules and Other Asymmetric Rationing Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 643-684, May.
    14. Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
    15. van den Brink, René & van der Laan, Gerard & Moes, Nigel, 2013. "A strategic implementation of the Average Tree solution for cycle-free graph games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(6), pages 2737-2748.
    16. Serrano, Roberto, 1997. "Reinterpreting the Kernel," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 58-80, November.
    17. Thomson, William, 2015. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: An update," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-59.
    18. O'Neill, Barry, 1982. "A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 345-371, June.
    19. Chambers, Christopher P., 2006. "Asymmetric rules for claims problems without homogeneity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 241-260, February.
    20. Hu, Cheng-Cheng & Tsay, Min-Hung & Yeh, Chun-Hsien, 2012. "Axiomatic and strategic justifications for the constrained equal benefits rule in the airport problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 185-197.
    21. Hu, Cheng-Cheng & Tsay, Min-Hung & Yeh, Chun-Hsien, 2018. "A study of the nucleolus in the nested cost-sharing problem: Axiomatic and strategic perspectives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 82-98.
    22. Vijay Krishna & Roberto Serrano, 1996. "Multilateral Bargaining," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 63(1), pages 61-80.
    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. Makoto Hagiwara & Shunsuke Hanato, 2021. "A strategic justification of the constrained equal awards rule through a procedurally fair multilateral bargaining game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 233-243, March.
    2. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Min-Hung Tsay & Chun-Hsien Yeh, 2020. "A strategic justification of the Talmud rule based on lower and upper bounds," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1045-1057, December.
    3. Schouten, Jop, 2022. "Cooperation, allocation and strategy in interactive decision-making," Other publications TiSEM d5d41448-8033-4f6b-8ec0-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Roberto Serrano, 2021. "Sixty-seven years of the Nash program: time for retirement?," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 35-48, March.
    5. Li, Jiawen & Ju, Yuan, 2023. "Divide and choose: An informationally robust strategic approach to bankruptcy problems," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Juan D. Moreno‐Ternero & Min‐Hung Tsay & Chun‐Hsien Yeh, 2022. "Strategic justifications of the TAL family of rules for bankruptcy problems," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 18(1), pages 92-102, March.
    7. Doudou Gong & Genjiu Xu & Xuanzhu Jin & Loyimee Gogoi, 2022. "A sequential partition method for non-cooperative games of bankruptcy problems," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 30(2), pages 359-379, July.
    8. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin & Çağrı Sağlam, 2023. "(In)efficiency and equitability of equilibrium outcomes in a family of bargaining games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(1), pages 175-193, March.

    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. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Min-Hung Tsay & Chun-Hsien Yeh, 2020. "A strategic justification of the Talmud rule based on lower and upper bounds," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1045-1057, December.
    2. Juan D. Moreno‐Ternero & Min‐Hung Tsay & Chun‐Hsien Yeh, 2022. "Strategic justifications of the TAL family of rules for bankruptcy problems," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 18(1), pages 92-102, March.
    3. Hu, Cheng-Cheng & Tsay, Min-Hung & Yeh, Chun-Hsien, 2018. "A study of the nucleolus in the nested cost-sharing problem: Axiomatic and strategic perspectives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 82-98.
    4. Thomson, William, 2015. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: An update," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-59.
    5. Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2023. "Additive adjudication of conflicting claims," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(1), pages 93-116, March.
    6. Stovall, John E., 2014. "Collective rationality and monotone path division rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-24.
    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. Flores-Szwagrzak, Karol, 2015. "Priority classes and weighted constrained equal awards rules for the claims problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 36-55.
    9. Roberto Serrano, 2005. "Fifty years of the Nash program, 1953-2003," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 29(2), pages 219-258, May.
    10. Hu, Cheng-Cheng & Tsay, Min-Hung & Yeh, Chun-Hsien, 2012. "Axiomatic and strategic justifications for the constrained equal benefits rule in the airport problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 185-197.
    11. Long, Yan & Sethuraman, Jay & Xue, Jingyi, 2021. "Equal-quantile rules in resource allocation with uncertain needs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Li, Jiawen & Ju, Yuan, 2023. "Divide and choose: An informationally robust strategic approach to bankruptcy problems," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Rebelo, S., 1997. "On the Determinant of Economic Growth," RCER Working Papers 443, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    17. Andrea Gallice, 2019. "Bankruptcy problems with reference-dependent preferences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(1), pages 311-336, March.
    18. Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2006. "Dividing Justly in Bargaining Problems with Claims," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(3), pages 571-594, December.
    19. Stovall, John E., 2020. "Equal sacrifice taxation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 55-75.
    20. Juarez, Ruben & Ko, Chiu Yu & Xue, Jingyi, 2018. "Sharing sequential values in a network," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 734-779.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Nash program; Bankruptcy problem; Bankruptcy rules; Strategic justification; Consistency;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative 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:gamebe:v:113:y:2019:i:c:p:515-532. 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/inca/622836 .

    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.