User menu

Equality preference in the claims problem: a questionnaire study of cuts in earnings and pensions

Bibliographic reference Bosmans, Kristof ; Schokkaert, Erik. Equality preference in the claims problem: a questionnaire study of cuts in earnings and pensions. In: Social Choice and Welfare, Vol. 33, no. 4, p. 533-557 (Novembre 2009)
Permanent URL http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/28721
  1. Alcalde J, Marco MC, Silva JA (2008) The minimal overlap rule revisited. Soc Choice Welf 31: 109–128
  2. Aumann RJ, Maschler M (1985) Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud. J Econ Theory 36: 195–213
  3. Béhue V (2003) Opinions éthiques sur les règles de division concernant les problèmes de banqueroute et de taxation. Mimeo, Université de Caen
  4. Boeri T, Börsch-Supan A, Tabellini G (2001) Would you like to shrink the welfare state? A survey of European citizens. Econ Policy 32: 9–50
  5. Boeri T, Börsch-Supan A, Tabellini G (2002) Pension reforms and the opinions of European citizens. Am Econ Rev (Papers and Proceedings) 92: 396–401
  6. Bosmans K, Lauwers L (2007) Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims. CES Discussion Paper 07.05, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
  7. Chun Y, Thomson W (2005) Convergence under replication of rules to adjudicate conflicting claims. Games Econ Behav 50: 129–142
  8. Chun Y, Schummer J, Thomson W (2001) Constrained egalitarianism: a new solution for claims problems. Seoul J Econ 14: 269–297
  9. Dominguez D, Thomson W (2006) A new solution to the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims. Econ Theory 28: 283–307
  10. Elster J (1992) Local justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  11. Frohlich N, Oppenheimer J (1992) Choosing justice. University of California Press, Berkeley
  12. Gächter S, Riedl A (2006) Dividing justly in bargaining problems with claims: normative judgments and actual negotiations. Soc Choice Welf 27: 571–594
  13. Herrero C, Moreno-Ternero JD, Ponti G (2006) On the adjudication of conflicting claims: an experimental study. CORE Discussion Paper 2006/62, Université catholique de Louvain
  14. Hougaard JL, Østerdal LP (2005) Inequality preserving rationing. Econ Lett 87: 355–360
  15. Hougaard JL, Thorlund-Petersen L (2001) Bankruptcy rules, inequality, and uncertainty. Working Paper 4/01, Department of Operations Management, Copenhagen Business School
  16. Ju B-G, Moreno-Ternero JD (2008) On the equivalence between progressive taxation and inequality reduction. Soc Choice Welf 30: 561–569
  17. Konow J (2003) Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. J Econ Lit 41: 1188–1239
  18. Moreno-Ternero JD, Villar A (2004) The Talmud rule and the securement of agents’ awards. Math Soc Sci 47: 245–257
  19. Moreno-Ternero JD, Villar A (2006) On the relative equitability of a family of taxation rules. J Public Econ Theory 8: 283–291
  20. Moulin Hervé, Chapter 6 Axiomatic cost and surplus sharing, Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare (2002) ISBN:9780444829146 p.289-357, 10.1016/s1574-0110(02)80010-8
  21. O’Neill B (1982) A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud. Math Soc Sci 2: 345–371
  22. Piniles HM (1861) Darkah shel Torah. Forester, Vienna
  23. Schokkaert E (1999) M. Tout-le-monde est “post-welfariste:” opinions sur la justice redistributive. Rev Econ 50: 811–831
  24. Schokkaert E, Overlaet B (1989) Moral intuitions and economic models of distributive justice. Soc Choice Welf 6: 19–31
  25. Sen AK, Foster JE (1997) On economic inequality, expanded edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford
  26. Sprumont Y (1991) The division problem with single-peaked preferences: a characterization of the uniform allocation rule. Econometrica 49: 509–519
  27. Thomson W (2003) Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey. Math Soc Sci 45: 249–297
  28. Thomson W (2008) Lorenz rankings of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims. Mimeo
  29. Young HP (1988) Distributive justice in taxation. J Econ Theory 44: 321–335
  30. Young HP (1994) Equity: in theory and practice. Princeton University Press, Princeton