IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eurase/v11y2021i4d10.1007_s40822-021-00174-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A neutral core of degressively proportional allocations under lexicographic preferences of agents

Author

Listed:
  • Katarzyna Cegiełka

    (Wroclaw University of Economics and Business)

  • Piotr Dniestrzański

    (Wroclaw University of Economics and Business)

  • Janusz Łyko

    (Wroclaw University of Economics and Business)

  • Arkadiusz Maciuk

    (Wroclaw University of Economics and Business)

  • Maciej Szczeciński

    (Wroclaw University of Economics and Business)

Abstract

One of the main problems of practical applications of degressively proportional allocations of goods and burdens is lack of uniqueness of this principle. Even under given boundary conditions of allocation, i.e. determined minimal and maximal amounts of a good that can be assigned in a given allocation, there are usually many feasible solutions. The lack of formal rules of allocation is the reason why the allocation is typically a result of negotiations among its agents. A number of allocations favor some of agents or their groups, therefore other agents cannot accept them. The aim of this paper is to indicate a way of reducing the set of all feasible solutions exclusively to those that are neutral to all agents. As a result of the term of lexicographic preference of allocation agents defined on the basis of the relation theory followed by a numerical analysis of sets of all feasible solutions, it is possible to determine a core of this set in the form of a subset of all feasible solutions that are acceptable by all agents. In addition, this subset can be further divided into smaller subsets with regard to the degree of acceptance of their elements. Theoretical analysis is complemented by case studies, one of which is application of this idea to the allocation of seats in the European Parliament among the member states of the European Union.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarzyna Cegiełka & Piotr Dniestrzański & Janusz Łyko & Arkadiusz Maciuk & Maciej Szczeciński, 2021. "A neutral core of degressively proportional allocations under lexicographic preferences of agents," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(4), pages 667-685, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eurase:v:11:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s40822-021-00174-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40822-021-00174-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40822-021-00174-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40822-021-00174-5?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. Claus Beisbart & Luc Bovens, 2007. "Welfarist evaluations of decision rules for boards of representatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(4), pages 581-608, December.
    2. Duff, Andrew, 2012. "Finding the balance of power in a post-national democracy," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 74-77.
    3. Yukio Koriyama & Jean-François Laslier & Antonin Macé & Rafael Treibich, 2013. "Optimal Apportionment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(3), pages 584-608.
    4. Salvador Barbera & Matthew O. Jackson, 2006. "On the Weights of Nations: Assigning Voting Weights in a Heterogeneous Union," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(2), pages 317-339, April.
    5. Xu, Xiaozhan, 2001. "The SIR method: A superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple criteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(3), pages 587-602, June.
    6. Nicholas Miller, 2012. "Why the Electoral College is good for political science (and public choice)," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 1-25, January.
    7. Macé, Antonin & Treibich, Rafael, 2012. "Computing the optimal weights in a utilitarian model of apportionment," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 141-151.
    8. Grimmett, G.R. & Oelbermann, K.-F. & Pukelsheim, F., 2012. "A power-weighted variant of the EU27 Cambridge Compromise," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 136-140.
    9. Sascha Kurz & Nicola Maaser & Stefan Napel, 2017. "On the Democratic Weights of Nations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(5), pages 1599-1634.
    10. Bahadir Fatih Yildirim & Burcu Adiguzel Mercangoz, 2020. "Evaluating the logistics performance of OECD countries by using fuzzy AHP and ARAS-G," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 10(1), pages 27-45, March.
    11. Jürgen Habermas, 2017. "Citizen and State Equality in a Supranational Political Community: Degressive Proportionality and the Pouvoir Constituant Mixte," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(2), pages 171-182, March.
    12. Moberg, Axel, 2012. "EP seats: The politics behind the math," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 78-84.
    13. Zhang, Tao & Zou, Heng-fu, 1998. "Fiscal decentralization, public spending, and economic growth in China," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 221-240, February.
    14. Pham, Ngoc Anh, 2019. "Lorenz comparison between Increasing serial and Shapley value cost-sharing rules," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 49-52.
    15. Laslier, Jean-François, 2012. "Why not proportional?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 90-93.
    16. Katarzyna Cegiełka & Janusz Łyko & Radosław Rudek, 2019. "Beyond the Cambridge Compromise algorithm towards degressively proportional allocations," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 317-332, June.
    17. Grimmett, Geoffrey R., 2012. "European apportionment via the Cambridge Compromise," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 68-73.
    18. Florek, Jan, 2012. "A numerical method to determine a degressive proportional distribution of seats in the European Parliament," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 121-129.
    19. Pierre‐Richard Agénor & Kyriakos C. Neanidis, 2011. "The Allocation Of Public Expenditure And Economic Growth," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 79(4), pages 899-931, July.
    20. Janusz Łyko & Radosław Rudek, 2017. "Operations research methods in political decisions: a case study on the European Parliament composition," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 572-586, December.
    21. Słomczyński, Wojciech & Życzkowski, Karol, 2012. "Mathematical aspects of degressive proportionality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 94-101.
    22. Ramírez González, V. & Martínez Aroza, J. & Márquez García, A., 2012. "Spline methods for degressive proportionality in the composition of the European Parliament," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 114-120.
    23. Serafini, Paolo, 2012. "Allocation of the EU Parliament seats via integer linear programming and revised quotas," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 107-113.
    24. Janusz Łyko & Ewa Łyko, 2020. "The Composition of the European Parliament During the 2019–2024 Term in Light of Legal Provisions and the Rules of Fair Distribution," Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, in: Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin & Hakan Danis & Ender Demir (ed.), Eurasian Economic Perspectives, pages 363-374, Springer.
    25. Jason Papathanasiou & Nikolaos Ploskas, 2018. "Multiple Criteria Decision Aid," Springer Optimization and Its Applications, Springer, number 978-3-319-91648-4, June.
    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. Katarzyna Cegielka & Piotr Dniestrzanski & Arkadiusz Maciuk & Maciej Szczecinski, 2022. "The Implications of Possible Enlargements of the European Union for the Configuration of Power in the European Parliament," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 145-159.

    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. Słomczyński, Wojciech & Życzkowski, Karol, 2012. "Mathematical aspects of degressive proportionality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 94-101.
    2. Katarzyna Cegielka & Piotr Dniestrzanski & Arkadiusz Maciuk & Maciej Szczecinski, 2022. "The Implications of Possible Enlargements of the European Union for the Configuration of Power in the European Parliament," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 145-159.
    3. Le Breton, Michel & Lepelley, Dominique & Macé, Antonin & Merlin, Vincent, 2017. "Le mécanisme optimal de vote au sein du conseil des représentants d’un système fédéral," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 93(1-2), pages 203-248, Mars-Juin.
    4. Kurz, Sascha & Maaser, Nicola & Napel, Stefan, 2018. "Fair representation and a linear Shapley rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 152-161.
    5. Allen, Trevor J. & Taagepera, Rein, 2017. "Seat allocation in federal second chambers: Logical models in Canada and Germany," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 22-30.
    6. Janusz Łyko & Radosław Rudek, 2017. "Operations research methods in political decisions: a case study on the European Parliament composition," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 572-586, December.
    7. Blanca L Delgado-Márquez & Michael Kaeding & Antonio Palomares, 2013. "A more balanced composition of the European Parliament with degressive proportionality," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(3), pages 458-471, September.
    8. Antonin Macé & Rafael Treibich, 2021. "Inducing Cooperation through Weighted Voting and Veto Power," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 70-111, August.
    9. N. Maaser, 2017. "Simple vs. Sophisticated Rules for the Allocation of Voting Weights," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 67-78, April.
    10. Macé, Antonin & Treibich, Rafael, 2012. "Computing the optimal weights in a utilitarian model of apportionment," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 141-151.
    11. Katarzyna Cegiełka & Janusz Łyko & Radosław Rudek, 2019. "Beyond the Cambridge Compromise algorithm towards degressively proportional allocations," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 317-332, June.
    12. Laslier, Jean-François, 2012. "Why not proportional?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 90-93.
    13. Markus Brill & Jean-François Laslier & Piotr Skowron, 2018. "Multiwinner approval rules as apportionment methods," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(3), pages 358-382, July.
    14. Marcus Pivato, 2016. "Asymptotic utilitarianism in scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 431-458, August.
    15. Maaser, Nicola & Stratmann, Thomas, 2024. "Costly voting in weighted committees: The case of moral costs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    16. Sascha Kurz & Nicola Maaser & Stefan Napel & Matthias Weber, 2014. "Mostly Sunny: A Forecast of Tomorrow's Power Index Research," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-058/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    17. Olivier Mouzon & Thibault Laurent & Michel Breton & Dominique Lepelley, 2019. "Exploring the effects of national and regional popular vote Interstate compact on a toy symmetric version of the Electoral College: an electoral engineering perspective," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 51-95, April.
    18. Biró, Péter & Kóczy, László Á. & Sziklai, Balázs, 2015. "Fair apportionment in the view of the Venice Commission’s recommendation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 32-41.
    19. Kazuya Kikuchi, 2022. "Welfare ordering of voting weight allocations," Papers 2208.05316, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    20. Kirsch, Werner & Toth, Gabor, 2022. "Collective bias models in two-tier voting systems and the democracy deficit," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 118-137.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fair division; Lexicographic order; Degressive proportionality; European Parliament;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D30 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - General
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D69 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Other

    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:spr:eurase:v:11:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s40822-021-00174-5. 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.