IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jogath/v49y2020i4d10.1007_s00182-020-00727-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A strategic justification of the Talmud rule based on lower and upper bounds

Author

Listed:
  • Juan D. Moreno-Ternero

    (Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

  • Min-Hung Tsay

    (National Chung Cheng University)

  • Chun-Hsien Yeh

    (Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica
    Chung-hua Institute for Economic Research)

Abstract

We follow the Nash program to provide a new strategic justification of the Talmud rule in bankruptcy problems. The design of our game is based on a focal axiomatization of the rule, which combines consistency with meaningful lower and upper bounds to all creditors. Our game actually considers bilateral negotiations, inspired by those bounds, which are extended to an arbitrary number of creditors, by means of consistency.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jogath:v:49:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s00182-020-00727-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s00182-020-00727-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00182-020-00727-z
    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/s00182-020-00727-z?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Villar, Antonio, 2004. "The Talmud rule and the securement of agents' awards," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 245-257, March.
    2. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Juan J. Vidal-Puga, 2004. "Bargaining with commitments," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 33(1), pages 129-144, January.
    5. Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2011. "Voting over piece-wise linear tax methods," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 29-36, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2017. "A Talmudic approach to bankruptcy problems," LIDAM Reprints CORE 2914, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    8. 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.
    9. Yeh, Chun-Hsien, 2008. "Secured lower bound, composition up, and minimal rights first for bankruptcy problems," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(9-10), pages 925-932, September.
    10. Juan Moreno-Ternero & Antonio Villar, 2006. "New characterizations of a classical bankruptcy rule," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 10(2), pages 73-84, August.
    11. Juan Moreno-Ternero & Antonio Villar, 2006. "The TAL-Family of Rules for Bankruptcy Problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(2), pages 231-249, October.
    12. Roberto Serrano, 2005. "Fifty years of the Nash program, 1953-2003," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 29(2), pages 219-258, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Harless, Patrick, 2017. "Wary of the worst: Maximizing award guarantees when new claimants may arrive," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 316-328.
    15. Krishna, Vijay & Serrano, Roberto, 1995. "Perfect Equilibria of a Model of N-Person Noncooperative Bargaining," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 24(3), pages 259-272.
    16. 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.
    17. Chun, Youngsub, 1989. "A noncooperative justification for egalitarian surplus sharing," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 245-261, June.
    18. Serrano, Roberto & Vohra, Rajiv, 2002. "Bargaining and Bargaining Sets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 292-308, May.
    19. Juan Moreno-Ternero, 2006. "Composition, Securement, and Concede-and-divide," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 227-237, September.
    20. Maschler, M & Owen, G, 1989. "The Consistent Shapley Value for Hyperplane Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 18(4), pages 389-407.
    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. 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.
    23. Serrano, Roberto, 1995. "Strategic bargaining, surplus sharing problems and the nucleolus," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 319-329.
    24. Diego Dominguez & William Thomson, 2006. "A new solution to the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 28(2), pages 283-307, June.
    25. 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.
    26. Youngsub Chun, 1999. "Equivalence of axioms for bankruptcy problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 28(4), pages 511-520.
    27. 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.
    28. Youngsub Chun & Cheng-Cheng Hu & Chun-Hsien Yeh, 2017. "A Strategic Implementation of the Shapley Value for the Nested Cost-Sharing Problem," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 19(1), pages 219-233, February.
    29. Youngsub Chun, 1999. "Equivalence of Axioms for Bankruptcy Problems," Working Paper Series no1, Institute of Economic Research, Seoul National University.
    30. 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.
    31. 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.
    32. Serrano, Roberto, 1993. "Non-cooperative Implementation of the Nucleolus: The 3-Player Case," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 22(4), pages 345-357.
    33. 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. 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.
    3. David Cerezo S'anchez, 2021. "JUBILEE: Secure Debt Relief and Forgiveness," Papers 2109.07267, arXiv.org.
    4. Atakan Dizarlar & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2023. "Kantian equilibria of a class of Nash bargaining games," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 25(4), pages 867-891, August.
    5. 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.

    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, 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Jens Leth Hougaard & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2010. "Baseline Rationing," Discussion Papers 10-16, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    5. Harless, Patrick, 2017. "Wary of the worst: Maximizing award guarantees when new claimants may arrive," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 316-328.
    6. 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.
    7. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2017. "A Talmudic approach to bankruptcy problems," LIDAM Reprints CORE 2914, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    8. Roberto Serrano, 2005. "Fifty years of the Nash program, 1953-2003," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 29(2), pages 219-258, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Li, Jiawen & Ju, Yuan, 2023. "Divide and choose: An informationally robust strategic approach to bankruptcy problems," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Jens Hougaard & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Lars Østerdal, 2013. "Rationing in the presence of baselines," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 1047-1066, April.
    12. 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.
    13. René Brink & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2017. "The reverse TAL-family of rules for bankruptcy problems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 254(1), pages 449-465, July.
    14. William Thomson, 2008. "Two families of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(4), pages 667-692, December.
    15. Koster, Maurice & Boonen, Tim J., 2019. "Constrained stochastic cost allocation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 20-30.
    16. Yeh, Chun-Hsien, 2008. "Secured lower bound, composition up, and minimal rights first for bankruptcy problems," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(9-10), pages 925-932, September.
    17. 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.
    18. William Thomson, 2014. "Compromising between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules," RCER Working Papers 584, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    19. Victor Ginsburgh & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2018. "On Poverty and the International Allocation of Development Aid," Working Papers ECARES 2018-23, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    20. van den Brink, René & Funaki, Yukihiko & van der Laan, Gerard, 2013. "Characterization of the Reverse Talmud bankruptcy rule by Exemption and Exclusion properties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 413-417.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Nash program; Strategic justification; Consistency; Lower bounds; Upper bounds; Talmud rule;
    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:spr:jogath:v:49:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s00182-020-00727-z. 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.