1994
DOI: 10.1007/bf00179209
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An alternative characterization of the uniform rule

Abstract: We consider the problem of allocating some amount of a commodity among a group of agents with single-peaked preferences. We show that the uniform rule is the only rule satisfying equal treatment of equals, Pareto efficiency, and strategy-proofness. This characterization strengthens two interesting results due to Sprumont (1991). Our method of proof involves only elementary arguments.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

3
76
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 97 publications
(79 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
3
76
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Sprumont (1991) started a long list of axiomatic characterizations of the uniform rule by showing …rst that it is the unique e¢ cient, strategy-proof and anonymous rule, and second that anonymity in this characterization can be replaced by envy-freeness. Ching (1994) strengthens the results of Sprumont (1991) by showing that the uniform rule is the only one satisfying e¢ ciency, strategy-proofness and equal treatment of equals. Ching (1992), Dagan (1996), Schummer and Thomson (1997), Sönmez (1994), and Thomson (1994aThomson ( , 1994bThomson ( , 1995Thomson ( , and 1997 contain alternative characterizations of the uniform rule in the division problem.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 63%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Sprumont (1991) started a long list of axiomatic characterizations of the uniform rule by showing …rst that it is the unique e¢ cient, strategy-proof and anonymous rule, and second that anonymity in this characterization can be replaced by envy-freeness. Ching (1994) strengthens the results of Sprumont (1991) by showing that the uniform rule is the only one satisfying e¢ ciency, strategy-proofness and equal treatment of equals. Ching (1992), Dagan (1996), Schummer and Thomson (1997), Sönmez (1994), and Thomson (1994aThomson ( , 1994bThomson ( , 1995Thomson ( , and 1997 contain alternative characterizations of the uniform rule in the division problem.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…In Theorem 1 we show that in the subclass of division problems under constraints with the property that the full set of agents is admissible, the feasible uniform rule is the unique rule satisfying e¢ ciency, strategy-proofness, equal treatment of equals, and bound monotonicity. This result is an extension of the characterization of Ching (1994) for the uniform rule in the classical division problem. The feasible uniform rule on this subclass of division problems under constraints tries to allocate the good among all agents in the most egalitarian way respecting not only the bounds imposed by e¢ ciency, but also those imposed by the feasibility constraints.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…In this setting the uniform rule has emerged as the most appealing one. 5 At each division problem with compulsory participation the uniform rule tries to allocate the amount of the good among all agents as equally as possible, keeping the e¢ ciency constraints binding. Hence, all agents are constrained in the same way; i.e., either each receives a share below his peak (when the sum of all their ideals is larger than the total amount) or each agent receives a share above his peak (when the sum of all their ideals is smaller than the total amount).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…He established that this rule is the only rule that is strategy-proof, anonymous, and Pareto-efficient. Ching [6] reinforced this result by replacing anonymity by symmetry. He proved that the uniform rule is the only rule that satisfies strategy- 1 The examination of the link between strategy-proofness and efficiency begins with Hurwicz [18] who studied the structure of strategy-proof and Pareto-efficient social choice functions in classical exchange economies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 86%