IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reecde/v27y2023i2d10.1007_s10058-022-00300-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deviation from proportionality and Lorenz-domination for claims problems

Author

Listed:
  • Miguel Ángel Mirás Calvo

    (Universidade de Vigo)

  • Iago Núñez Lugilde

    (Universidade de Vigo)

  • Carmen Quinteiro Sandomingo

    (Universidade de Vigo)

  • Estela Sánchez-Rodríguez

    (Universidade de Vigo)

Abstract

The Lorenz order is commonly used to compare rules for claims problems. In this paper, we incorporate the average of awards rule, the mean value of the set of awards vectors for a claims problem, to the ranking of the standard rules by proving some properties that are satisfied by this rule. We define a pair of coefficients, inspired by the Gini index, aimed at measuring, for any given claims problem, the discrepancy between the awards assigned by a rule and the proportional division. We generalize the proportionality deviation indices by introducing coefficients that measure the deviation between the awards selected by any two division rules. We show how these deviation indices are related to the Lorenz order.

Suggested Citation

  • Miguel Ángel Mirás Calvo & Iago Núñez Lugilde & Carmen Quinteiro Sandomingo & Estela Sánchez-Rodríguez, 2023. "Deviation from proportionality and Lorenz-domination for claims problems," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(2), pages 439-467, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reecde:v:27:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10058-022-00300-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10058-022-00300-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10058-022-00300-y
    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/s10058-022-00300-y?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. Yoichi Kasajima & Rodrigo Velez, 2011. "Reflecting inequality of claims in gains and losses," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 283-295, February.
    2. Kristof Bosmans & Luc Lauwers, 2011. "Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(4), pages 791-807, November.
    3. Schummer, James & Thomson, William, 1997. "Two derivations of the uniform rule and an application to bankruptcy," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 333-337, September.
    4. Lidia Ceriani & Paolo Verme, 2012. "The origins of the Gini index: extracts from Variabilità e Mutabilità (1912) by Corrado Gini," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 10(3), pages 421-443, September.
    5. Julio González-Díaz & Estela Sánchez-Rodríguez, 2007. "A natural selection from the core of a TU game: the core-center," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 36(1), pages 27-46, September.
    6. Kristof Bosmans & Erik Schokkaert, 2009. "Equality preference in the claims problem: a questionnaire study of cuts in earnings and pensions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(4), pages 533-557, November.
    7. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Osterdal, Lars Peter, 2005. "Inequality preserving rationing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 355-360, June.
    8. Kasajima, Yoichi & Velez, Rodrigo A., 2010. "Non-proportional inequality preservation in gains and losses," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1079-1092, 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. Josep M. Izquierdo & Jesús Montes & Carlos Rafels, 2024. "Population Lorenz-monotonic allocation schemes for TU-games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(2), pages 417-436, September.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & M. Carmen Marco-Gil & Juan-Francisco Sánchez-García, 2022. "New empirical insights into conflicting claims problems," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 709-738, December.
    4. Satya R. Chakravarty & Palash Sarkar, 2022. "Inequality minimising subsidy and taxation," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 10(1), pages 53-67, May.
    5. Kasajima, Yoichi & Velez, Rodrigo A., 2010. "Non-proportional inequality preservation in gains and losses," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1079-1092, November.
    6. Yoichi Kasajima & Rodrigo Velez, 2011. "Reflecting inequality of claims in gains and losses," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 283-295, February.
    7. Kristof Bosmans & Luc Lauwers, 2011. "Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(4), pages 791-807, November.
    8. Kristof Bosmans & Erik Schokkaert, 2009. "Equality preference in the claims problem: a questionnaire study of cuts in earnings and pensions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(4), pages 533-557, November.
    9. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & M. Marco-Gil, 2014. "A new approach for bounding awards in bankruptcy problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(2), pages 447-469, August.
    10. Thomson, William, 2024. "Cost allocation and airport problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 17-31.
    11. Karagozoglu, E., 2008. "Distributive concerns in the bankruptcy problem with an endogenous estate," Research Memorandum 032, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    12. Josep Maria Izquierdo Aznar & Pere Timoner Lledó, 2016. "Constrained multi-issue rationing problems," UB School of Economics Working Papers 2016/347, University of Barcelona School of Economics.
    13. 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.
    14. William Thomson, 2007. "On the existence of consistent rules to adjudicate conflicting claims: a constructive geometric approach," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 11(3), pages 225-251, November.
    15. Takuma Wakayama, 2017. "Bribe-proofness for single-peaked preferences: characterizations and maximality-of-domains results," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(2), pages 357-385, August.
    16. Erlanson, Albin & Szwagrzak, Karol, 2013. "Strategy-Proof Package Assignment," Working Papers 2013:43, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    17. Oded Stark & Wiktor Budzinski, 2021. "A social‐psychological reconstruction of Amartya Sen’s measures of inequality and social welfare," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(4), pages 552-566, November.
    18. James Schummer, 1999. "Almost-dominant Strategy Implementation," Discussion Papers 1278, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    19. Wulf Gaertner & Richard Bradley & Yongsheng Xu & Lars Schwettmann, 2019. "Against the proportionality principle: Experimental findings on bargaining over losses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, July.
    20. Xiaofeng Lv & Gupeng Zhang & Guangyu Ren, 2017. "Gini index estimation for lifetime data," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 275-304, April.

    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:reecde:v:27:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10058-022-00300-y. 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.