IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unm/umagsb/2018006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Characterizing NTU-bankruptcy rules using bargaining axioms

Author

Listed:
  • Dietzenbacher, Bas
  • Peters, Hans

    (QE Math. Economics & Game Theory, RS: GSBE ETBC, RS: GSBE Theme Conflict & Cooperation, RS: GSBE Theme Data-Driven Decision-Making)

Abstract

This paper takes an axiomatic bargaining approach to bankruptcy problems with nontransferable utility by characterizing bankruptcy rules in terms of properties from bargaining theory. In particular, we derive new axiomatic characterizations of the proportional rule, the truncated proportional rule, and the constrained relative equal awards rule using properties which concern changes in the estate or the claims.

Suggested Citation

  • Dietzenbacher, Bas & Peters, Hans, 2018. "Characterizing NTU-bankruptcy rules using bargaining axioms," Research Memorandum 006, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    • Handle: RePEc:unm:umagsb:2018006
    DOI: 10.26481/umagsb.2018006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/ws/files/24152706/RM18006.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26481/umagsb.2018006?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carmen Herrero, 1997. "Endogenous reference points and the adjusted proportional solution for bargaining problems with claims," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(1), pages 113-119.
    2. Bas Dietzenbacher & Peter Borm & Arantza Estévez-Fernández, 2020. "NTU-bankruptcy problems: consistency and the relative adjustment principle," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 24(1), pages 101-122, June.
    3. Albizuri, M.J. & Dietzenbacher, B.J. & Zarzuelo, J.M., 2020. "Bargaining with independence of higher or irrelevant claims," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 11-17.
    4. Dagan, Nir & Volij, Oscar, 1993. "The bankruptcy problem: a cooperative bargaining approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 287-297, November.
    5. Adrian Van Deemen & Agnieszka Rusinowska (ed.), 2010. "Collective Decision Making," Theory and Decision Library C, Springer, number 978-3-642-02865-6, September.
    6. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    7. Chun, Youngsub & Thomson, William, 1990. "Nash solution and uncertain disagreement points," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 213-223, September.
    8. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    9. 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.
    10. van Damme, E.E.C. & Peters, H., 1991. "Characterizing the Nash and Raiffa bargaining solutions by disagreement point axioms," Other publications TiSEM 4bd5eb9e-328a-45a0-aa0a-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Chun, Youngsub & Thomson, William, 1992. "Bargaining problems with claims," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 19-33, August.
    12. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    13. Dietzenbacher, Bas, 2018. "Bankruptcy games with nontransferable utility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 16-21.
    14. Roth, Alvin E., 1977. "Independence of irrelevant alternatives, and solutions to Nash's bargaining problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 247-251, December.
    15. Hans Peters & Eric Van Damme, 1991. "Characterizing the Nash and Raiffa Bargaining Solutions by Disagreement Point Axioms," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 447-461, August.
    16. Guni Orshan & Federico Valenciano & José M. Zarzuelo, 2003. "The Bilateral Consistent Prekernel, the Core, and NTU Bankruptcy Problems," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 268-282, May.
    17. B. Dietzenbacher & A. Estévez-Fernández & P. Borm & R. Hendrickx, 2021. "Proportionality, equality, and duality in bankruptcy problems with nontransferable utility," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 301(1), pages 65-80, June.
    18. Marco Mariotti & Antonio Villar, 2005. "The Nash rationing problem," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 33(3), pages 367-377, September.
    19. Livne, Zvi A., 1988. "The bargaining problem with an uncertain conflict outcome," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 287-302, June.
    20. Robert W. Rosenthal, 1978. "Arbitration of Two-party Disputes under Uncertainty," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 45(3), pages 595-604.
    21. Roth, Alvin E, 1979. "Proportional Solutions to the Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 775-777, May.
    22. M. Freimer & P. L. Yu, 1976. "Some New Results on Compromise Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 688-693, February.
    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. Albizuri, M.J. & Dietzenbacher, B.J. & Zarzuelo, J.M., 2020. "Bargaining with independence of higher or irrelevant claims," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 11-17.

    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. B. Dietzenbacher & A. Estévez-Fernández & P. Borm & R. Hendrickx, 2021. "Proportionality, equality, and duality in bankruptcy problems with nontransferable utility," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 301(1), pages 65-80, June.
    2. Albizuri, M.J. & Dietzenbacher, B.J. & Zarzuelo, J.M., 2020. "Bargaining with independence of higher or irrelevant claims," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 11-17.
    3. KIbrIs, Özgür & TapkI, Ipek Gürsel, 2010. "Bargaining with nonanonymous disagreement: Monotonic rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 233-241, January.
    4. Bas Dietzenbacher & Peter Borm & Arantza Estévez-Fernández, 2020. "NTU-bankruptcy problems: consistency and the relative adjustment principle," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 24(1), pages 101-122, June.
    5. Walter Bossert & Hans Peters, 2022. "Individual disagreement point concavity and the bargaining problem," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 18(1), pages 6-15, March.
    6. Smorodinsky, Rann, 2005. "Nash's bargaining solution when the disagreement point is random," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 3-11, July.
    7. William Thomson, 2022. "On the axiomatic theory of bargaining: a survey of recent results," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 491-542, December.
    8. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2011. "Disagreement point axioms and the egalitarian bargaining solution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(1), pages 63-85, February.
    9. Dietzenbacher, Bas & Yanovskaya, Elena, 2023. "The equal split-off set for NTU-games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 61-67.
    10. Kıbrıs, Özgür & Tapkı, İpek Gürsel, 2011. "Bargaining with nonanonymous disagreement: Decomposable rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 151-161.
    11. Youngsub Chun, 2021. "Axioms concerning uncertain disagreement points in 2-person bargaining problems," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 6(1), pages 37-58, December.
    12. Anbarci, Nejat & Sun, Ching-jen, 2013. "Robustness of intermediate agreements and bargaining solutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 367-376.
    13. Bas Dietzenbacher, 2023. "Generalizing the constrained equal awards rule," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 131-150, July.
    14. Gong, Doudou & Dietzenbacher, Bas & Peters, Hans, 2022. "A random arrival rule for NTU-bankruptcy problems," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    15. Xu, Yongsheng, 2012. "Symmetry-based compromise and the Nash solution to convex bargaining problems," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 484-486.
    16. Geoffroy Clippel, 2007. "An axiomatization of the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(2), pages 201-210, September.
    17. Philip Grech & Oriol Tejada, 2018. "Divide the dollar and conquer more: sequential bargaining and risk aversion," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1261-1286, November.
    18. Ephraim Zehavi & Amir Leshem, 2018. "On the Allocation of Multiple Divisible Assets to Players with Different Utilities," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 52(1), pages 253-274, June.
    19. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2018. "Anchoring on Utopia: a generalization of the Kalai–Smorodinsky solution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 6(2), pages 141-155, October.
    20. Diskin, A. & Koppel, M. & Samet, D., 2011. "Generalized Raiffa solutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 452-458.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:unm:umagsb:2018006. 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: Andrea Willems or Leonne Portz (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/meteonl.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.