IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v176y2010i1p379-38710.1007-s10479-009-0541-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nondiscrimination and monotonicity in fair division

Author

Listed:
  • John Pratt

Abstract

Conditions one might impose on fair allocation procedures are introduced. Nondiscrimination requires that agents share an item in proportion to their entitlements if they receive nothing else. The “price” procedures of Pratt (J. Risk Uncertain. 35:203–236, 2007 ), including the Nash bargaining procedure, satisfy this. Other prominent efficient procedures do not. In two-agent problems, reducing the feasible set between the solution and one agent’s maximum point increases the utility cost to that agent of providing any given utility gain to the other and is equivalent to decreasing the dispersion of the latter’s values for the items he does not receive without changing their total. One-agent monotonicity requires that such a change should not hurt the first agent, limited monotonicity that the solution should not change. For prices, the former implies convexity in the smaller of the two valuations, the latter linearity. In either case, the price is at least their average and hence spiteful. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Suggested Citation

  • John Pratt, 2010. "Nondiscrimination and monotonicity in fair division," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 379-387, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:176:y:2010:i:1:p:379-387:10.1007/s10479-009-0541-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-009-0541-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10479-009-0541-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-009-0541-4?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. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    2. Machina, Mark J & Pratt, John W, 1997. "Increasing Risk: Some Direct Constructions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 103-127, March.
    3. John Pratt, 2007. "Fair (and not so fair) division," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 203-236, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. John W. Pratt, 2008. "Some neglected axioms in fair division," Harvard Business School Working Papers 08-094, Harvard Business School.
    2. Jie Ning & Matthew J. Sobel, 2018. "Production and Capacity Management with Internal Financing," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 147-160, February.
    3. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    4. Bergantiños, Gustavo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Monotonicity in sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 338-346.
    5. G. Dionne & F. Gagnon & K. Dachraoui, 1997. "Increases in risk and optimal portfolio," THEMA Working Papers 97-29, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    6. Camacho, Carmen & Kamihigashi, Takashi & Sağlam, Çağrı, 2018. "Robust comparative statics for non-monotone shocks in large aggregative games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 288-299.
    7. Lea Melnikovová, 2017. "Can Game Theory Help to Mitigate Water Conflicts in the Syrdarya Basin?," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 1393-1401.
    8. Daniele Cassese & Paolo Pin, 2018. "Decentralized Pure Exchange Processes on Networks," Papers 1803.08836, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.
    9. Carrillo-Tudela, Carlos & Graber, Michael & Waelde, Klaus, 2018. "Unemployment and vacancy dynamics with imperfect financial markets," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 128-143.
    10. Chiu, W. Henry, 2019. "Comparative statics in an ordinal theory of choice under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 113-123.
    11. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & António Osório & Josep E. Peris, 2015. "From Bargaining Solutions to Claims Rules: A Proportional Approach," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, March.
    12. Chateauneuf, Alain & Cohen, Michele & Meilijson, Isaac, 2004. "Four notions of mean-preserving increase in risk, risk attitudes and applications to the rank-dependent expected utility model," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 547-571, August.
    13. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    14. Hwang, Sung-Ha & Rey-Bellet, Luc, 2021. "Positive feedback in coordination games: Stochastic evolutionary dynamics and the logit choice rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 355-373.
    15. Karna Basu & Kaushik Basu & Tito Cordella, 2016. "Asymmetric Punishment as an Instrument of Corruption Control," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 18(6), pages 831-856, December.
    16. Chateauneuf, A. & Lakhnati, G., 2015. "Increases in risk and demand for a risky asset," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 44-48.
    17. Yakov Babichenko & Leonard J. Schulman, 2015. "Pareto Efficient Nash Implementation Via Approval Voting," Papers 1502.05238, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2017.
    18. Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2015. "Nash bargaining with (almost) no rationality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 107-109.
    19. Man Si, 2015. "Intrafamily bargaining and love," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 771-789, December.
    20. Arzu Kıbrıs & Özgür Kıbrıs & Mehmet Yiğit Gürdal, 2022. "Protectionist demands in globalization," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 345-365, September.

    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:spr:annopr:v:176:y:2010:i:1:p:379-387:10.1007/s10479-009-0541-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.