Jump to content

Proportional rule (bankruptcy): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit
Undid revision 1159145920 by 2400:C600:3459:BEFF:1:0:5FAB:4F0 (talk) removed nonsense short description
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''proportional rule''' is a division rule for solving [[bankruptcy problem]]s. According to this rule, each claimant should receive an amount proportional to their claim. In the context of taxation, it corresponds to a [[proportional tax]].<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=William|first=Thomson|date=2003-07-01|title=Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165489602000707|journal=Mathematical Social Sciences|language=en|volume=45|issue=3|pages=249–297|doi=10.1016/S0165-4896(02)00070-7|issn=0165-4896}}</ref>
{{Short description|Genuine android action active for all permission setting complete}}
The '''proportional rule''' is a division rule for solving [[bankruptcy problem]]s. According to this rule, each claimant should receive an amount proportional to their claim. In the context of taxation, it corresponds to a [[proportional tax]].<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=William|first=Thomson|date=2003-07-01|title=Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165489602000707|journal=Mathematical Social Sciences|language=en|volume=45|issue=3|pages=249–297|doi=10.1016/S0165-4896(02)00070-7|issn=0165-4896}}</ref>


== Formal definition ==
== Formal definition ==
Line 24: Line 23:
* No advantageous transfer;<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Moulin|first=Hervé|date=1985|title=Egalitarianism and Utilitarianism in Quasi-Linear Bargaining|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1911723|journal=Econometrica|volume=53|issue=1|pages=49–67|doi=10.2307/1911723|jstor=1911723 |issn=0012-9682}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Moulin|first=Hervé|date=1985-06-01|title=The separability axiom and equal-sharing methods|url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531%2885%2990082-1|journal=Journal of Economic Theory|language=en|volume=36|issue=1|pages=120–148|doi=10.1016/0022-0531(85)90082-1|issn=0022-0531}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Chun|first=Youngsub|date=1988-06-01|title=The proportional solution for rights problems|url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0165-4896%2888%2990009-1|journal=Mathematical Social Sciences|language=en|volume=15|issue=3|pages=231–246|doi=10.1016/0165-4896(88)90009-1|issn=0165-4896}}</ref>
* No advantageous transfer;<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Moulin|first=Hervé|date=1985|title=Egalitarianism and Utilitarianism in Quasi-Linear Bargaining|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1911723|journal=Econometrica|volume=53|issue=1|pages=49–67|doi=10.2307/1911723|jstor=1911723 |issn=0012-9682}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Moulin|first=Hervé|date=1985-06-01|title=The separability axiom and equal-sharing methods|url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531%2885%2990082-1|journal=Journal of Economic Theory|language=en|volume=36|issue=1|pages=120–148|doi=10.1016/0022-0531(85)90082-1|issn=0022-0531}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Chun|first=Youngsub|date=1988-06-01|title=The proportional solution for rights problems|url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0165-4896%2888%2990009-1|journal=Mathematical Social Sciences|language=en|volume=15|issue=3|pages=231–246|doi=10.1016/0165-4896(88)90009-1|issn=0165-4896}}</ref>
* Resource linearity;<ref name=":0" />
* Resource linearity;<ref name=":0" />
*No advantageous merging and no advantageous splitting.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last=O'Neill|first=Barry|date=1982-06-01|title=A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud|url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0165-4896%2882%2990029-4|journal=Mathematical Social Sciences|language=en|volume=2|issue=4|pages=345–371|doi=10.1016/0165-4896(82)90029-4|issn=0165-4896}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=de Frutos|first=M. Angeles|date=1999-09-01|title=Coalitional manipulations in a bankruptcy problem|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s100580050037|journal=Review of Economic Design|language=en|volume=4|issue=3|pages=255–272|doi=10.1007/s100580050037|issn=1434-4750|hdl=10016/4282|s2cid=195240195 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>
*No advantageous merging and no advantageous splitting.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last=O'Neill|first=Barry|date=1982-06-01|title=A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud|url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0165-4896%2882%2990029-4|journal=Mathematical Social Sciences|language=en|volume=2|issue=4|pages=345–371|doi=10.1016/0165-4896(82)90029-4|issn=0165-4896|hdl=10419/220805|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=de Frutos|first=M. Angeles|date=1999-09-01|title=Coalitional manipulations in a bankruptcy problem|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s100580050037|journal=Review of Economic Design|language=en|volume=4|issue=3|pages=255–272|doi=10.1007/s100580050037|issn=1434-4750|hdl=10016/4282|s2cid=195240195 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>


== Truncated-proportional rule ==
== Truncated-proportional rule ==

Latest revision as of 18:44, 27 July 2024

The proportional rule is a division rule for solving bankruptcy problems. According to this rule, each claimant should receive an amount proportional to their claim. In the context of taxation, it corresponds to a proportional tax.[1]

Formal definition

[edit]

There is a certain amount of money to divide, denoted by (=Estate or Endowment). There are n claimants. Each claimant i has a claim denoted by . Usually, , that is, the estate is insufficient to satisfy all the claims.

The proportional rule says that each claimant i should receive , where r is a constant chosen such that . In other words, each agent gets .

Examples

[edit]

Examples with two claimants:

  • . That is: if the estate is worth 100 and the claims are 60 and 90, then , so the first claimant gets 40 and the second claimant gets 60.
  • , and similarly .

Examples with three claimants:

  • .
  • .
  • .

Characterizations

[edit]

The proportional rule has several characterizations. It is the only rule satisfying the following sets of axioms:

  • Self-duality and composition-up;[2]
  • Self-duality and composition-down;
  • No advantageous transfer;[3][4][5]
  • Resource linearity;[5]
  • No advantageous merging and no advantageous splitting.[5][6][7]

Truncated-proportional rule

[edit]

There is a variant called truncated-claims proportional rule, in which each claim larger than E is truncated to E, and then the proportional rule is activated. That is, it equals , where . The results are the same for the two-claimant problems above, but for the three-claimant problems we get:

  • , since all claims are truncated to 100;
  • , since the claims vector is truncated to (100,200,200).
  • , since here the claims are not truncated.

Adjusted-proportional rule

[edit]

The adjusted proportional rule[8] first gives, to each agent i, their minimal right, which is the amount not claimed by the other agents. Formally, . Note that implies .

Then, it revises the claim of agent i to , and the estate to . Note that that .

Finally, it activates the truncated-claims proportional rule, that is, it returns , where .

With two claimants, the revised claims are always equal, so the remainder is divided equally. Examples:

  • . The minimal rights are . The remaining claims are and the remaining estate is ; it is divided equally among the claimants.
  • . The minimal rights are . The remaining claims are and the remaining estate is .
  • . The minimal rights are . The remaining claims are and the remaining estate is .

With three or more claimants, the revised claims may be different. In all the above three-claimant examples, the minimal rights are and thus the outcome is equal to TPROP, for example, .

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ William, Thomson (2003-07-01). "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey". Mathematical Social Sciences. 45 (3): 249–297. doi:10.1016/S0165-4896(02)00070-7. ISSN 0165-4896.
  2. ^ Young, H. P (1988-04-01). "Distributive justice in taxation". Journal of Economic Theory. 44 (2): 321–335. doi:10.1016/0022-0531(88)90007-5. ISSN 0022-0531.
  3. ^ Moulin, Hervé (1985). "Egalitarianism and Utilitarianism in Quasi-Linear Bargaining". Econometrica. 53 (1): 49–67. doi:10.2307/1911723. ISSN 0012-9682. JSTOR 1911723.
  4. ^ Moulin, Hervé (1985-06-01). "The separability axiom and equal-sharing methods". Journal of Economic Theory. 36 (1): 120–148. doi:10.1016/0022-0531(85)90082-1. ISSN 0022-0531.
  5. ^ a b c Chun, Youngsub (1988-06-01). "The proportional solution for rights problems". Mathematical Social Sciences. 15 (3): 231–246. doi:10.1016/0165-4896(88)90009-1. ISSN 0165-4896.
  6. ^ O'Neill, Barry (1982-06-01). "A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud". Mathematical Social Sciences. 2 (4): 345–371. doi:10.1016/0165-4896(82)90029-4. hdl:10419/220805. ISSN 0165-4896.
  7. ^ de Frutos, M. Angeles (1999-09-01). "Coalitional manipulations in a bankruptcy problem". Review of Economic Design. 4 (3): 255–272. doi:10.1007/s100580050037. hdl:10016/4282. ISSN 1434-4750. S2CID 195240195.
  8. ^ Curiel, I. J.; Maschler, M.; Tijs, S. H. (1987-09-01). "Bankruptcy games". Zeitschrift für Operations Research. 31 (5): A143–A159. doi:10.1007/BF02109593. ISSN 1432-5217. S2CID 206811949.