Reglas leximin para problemas de bancarrota con incertidumbre*

  1. Sánchez Sánchez, Francisca J. 1
  2. Hinojosa Ramos, Miguel A. 1
  3. Mármol Conde, Amparo M. 2
  1. 1 Universidad Pablo de Olavide
    info

    Universidad Pablo de Olavide

    Sevilla, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02z749649

  2. 2 Universidad de Sevilla
    info

    Universidad de Sevilla

    Sevilla, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03yxnpp24

Journal:
Anales de ASEPUMA

ISSN: 2171-892X

Year of publication: 2012

Issue: 20

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Anales de ASEPUMA

Abstract

En este trabajo modelizamos los problemas de bancarrota en condiciones de in-certidumbre, bajo el supuesto de que hay varios posibles estados de la naturaleza, identificándose cada uno de ellos con un problema de bancarrota diferente. Para esta extensión multidimensional de los problemas clásicos de bancarrota, consideramos situaciones en las que los agentes presentan preferencias de tipo aditivo y leximin sobre los posibles resultados. Proponemos reglas de reparto en las que se combinan diferentes principios de racionalidad y se garantiza la eficiencia con respecto a las preferencias de tipo leximin.

Bibliographic References

  • Aumann, R. J., Maschler, M. (1985).“ Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud.” Journal of Economic Theory, 36, pp. 195–213.
  • Bergantinos, G., Lorenzo, L., Lorenzo Freire, S. (2010).“ A characterizations of the proportional rule in multi-issue allocation situations.” Operations Research Letters, 38, pp. 17-19.
  • Bergantinos, G., Lorenzo Freire, S. (2011). “New caracterizations of the constrained equal awards rule in multi-issue allocation situations.” Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, pp. 1–15.
  • Bossert, W.(1993). “An alternative solution to bargaining problems with claims.” Mathematical Social Sciences, 25, pp. 205–220.
  • Bossert, W., Nosal, E., Sadanand, V. (1996).“ Bargaining under uncertainty and the monotone path solutions.” Games and Economic Behavior, 14, pp. 173–189.
  • Bossert, W., Peters, H. (2001).“ Minimax regret and efficient bargaining under uncertainty.” Games and Economic Behavior, 34, pp. 1–10.
  • Calleja, P., Borm, P., Hendrickx, R. (2005). “ Multi-issue allocation situations.” European Journal of Operational Research, 164, pp. 730–747.
  • Chun, Y., Thomson, W. (1992).“ Bargaining problems with claims.” Mathematical Social Sciences, 24, pp. 19–33.
  • González Arcón, C., Borm, P., Hendrickx, R. (2007).“ A composite run-to-the-bank rule for multi-issue allocation situations.” Methods of Operations Research, 65, pp. 339–352.
  • Herrero, C. (1998).“Bargaining with claims in economic environments.” Revista Espa˜nola de Econom´ıa, 15, 1, pp. 3–13.
  • Ju, B-G., Miyagawa, E., Sakai, T. (2007).“ Non-manipulable división rules in claim problems and generalizations.” Journal of Economic Theory, 132, pp. 1–26.
  • Lorenzo Freire, S., Hendrickx, R., Casas Mendez, B.(2009). ´ “The two-stage constrained equal awards and losses for multi-issue allocation situations.” TOP, DOI 10.1007/s11750-009-0073-8.
  • Marmol, A. M., Ponsati, C. (2008).“ Bargaining over multiple issues with maxmin and leximin preferences.” Social Choice and Welfare, 30(4), pp. 597–618.
  • Moreno Ternero, J.D. (2009).“ The proportional rule for multi-issue bankruptcy problems.” Economics Bulletin, 29, pp. 483–490.
  • Pulido, M., Sanchez Soriano, J., Llorca, N.l(2002).“ Game theory techniques for University management: and extended bankruptcy model.” Annals of Operations Research, 102, pp. 129–142.
  • Pulido, M., Borm, P., Hendrickx, R., Llorca, N., Sanchez Soriano, J., (2008).“ Compromise solutions for bankruptcy situations with references.” Annals of Operations Research, 158, pp. 133–141.
  • Thomson, W. (2003). “ Axiomatice and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: A survey”. Mathematical Social Sciences, 45, pp. 249–297.
Data source: Dialnet