IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uct/uconnp/2008-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Three-agent Peer Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Vicki Knoblauch

    (University of Connecticut)

Abstract

I show that every rule for dividing a dollar among three agents impartially (so that each agent's share depends only on her evaluation by her associates) underpays some agent by at least one-third of a dollar for some consistent profile of evaluations. I then produce an impartial division rule that never underpays or overpays any agent by more than one-third of a dollar, and for most consistent evaluation profiles does much better.

Suggested Citation

  • Vicki Knoblauch, 2008. "Three-agent Peer Evaluation," Working papers 2008-28, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:2008-28
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://media.economics.uconn.edu/working/2008-28.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Clippel, Geoffroy & Moulin, Herve & Tideman, Nicolaus, 2008. "Impartial division of a dollar," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 176-191, March.
    2. 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.
    3. T. Tideman & Florenz Plassmann, 2008. "Paying the partners," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 19-37, July.
    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. Arthur Carvalho & Kate Larson, 2012. "Sharing Rewards Among Strangers Based on Peer Evaluations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 253-273, September.
    2. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2022. "Reasonable Nash demand games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 319-330, September.
    3. Boudreau, James W. & Knoblauch, Vicki, 2011. "Dividing profits three ways: Exactness vs. consensuality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 79-86, 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. Gantner, Anita & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2016. "Fairness and efficiency in a subjective claims problem," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 21-36.
    2. Ruben Juarez & Kohei Nitta & Miguel Vargas, 2020. "Profit-sharing and efficient time allocation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 817-846, October.
    3. Boudreau, James W. & Knoblauch, Vicki, 2011. "Dividing profits three ways: Exactness vs. consensuality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 79-86, September.
    4. Gantner, Anita & Horn, Kristian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2019. "The role of communication in fair division with subjective claims," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 72-89.
    5. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2022. "Reasonable Nash demand games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 319-330, September.
    6. Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2021. "Aggregator operators for dynamic rationing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(2), pages 682-691.
    7. Donald N. Stengel, 2013. "Aggregating Incomplete Individual Ratings in Group Resource Allocation Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 235-258, March.
    8. Ruben Juarez & Kohei Nitta, 2017. "Profit-Sharing and Implementation of Efficient Outcomes," Working Papers 201702, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    9. Arthur Carvalho & Kate Larson, 2012. "Sharing Rewards Among Strangers Based on Peer Evaluations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 253-273, September.
    10. Didier Sornette & Spencer Wheatley & Peter Cauwels, 2019. "The Fair Reward Problem: The Illusion Of Success And How To Solve It," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(03), pages 1-52, May.
    11. Didier Sornette & Spencer Wheatley & Peter Cauwels, 2019. "The fair reward problem: the illusion of success and how to solve it," Papers 1902.04940, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2019.
    12. Erlanson, Albin & Szwagrzak, Karol, 2013. "Strategy-Proof Package Assignment," Working Papers 2013:43, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    13. 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.
    14. Juan D Moreno-Ternero & John E Roemer, 2006. "Impartiality, Priority, and Solidarity in the Theory of Justice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(5), pages 1419-1427, September.
    15. Oihane Gallo & Bettina Klaus, 2022. "Stable partitions for proportional generalized claims problems," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 22.03, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    16. Pálvölgyi, Dénes & Peters, Hans & Vermeulen, Dries, 2014. "A strategic approach to multiple estate division problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 135-152.
    17. Jens Leth Hougaard & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2010. "Baseline Rationing," Discussion Papers 10-16, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    18. 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.
    19. Arantza Estévez-Fernández & Peter Borm & M. Gloria Fiestras-Janeiro, 2020. "Nontransferable utility bankruptcy games," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 28(1), pages 154-177, April.
    20. Peris, Josep E. & Jiménez-Gómez, José M., 2012. "A Proportional Approach to Bankruptcy Problems with a guaranteed minimum," QM&ET Working Papers 12-7, University of Alicante, D. Quantitative Methods and Economic Theory.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    division function; impartial; consensual;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • 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:uct:uconnp:2008-28. 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: Mark McConnel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deuctus.html .

    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.