Fairness in Bankruptcies: An Experimental Study

References

• Aumann RJ, Maschler M (1985) Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud. J. Econom. Theory 36(2):195–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bellemare C, Kröger S, van Soest A (2008) Measuring inequity aversion in a heterogeneous population using experimental decisions and subjective probabilities. Econometrica 76(4):815–839.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2000) ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(1):166–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bosmans K, Schokkaert E (2009) Equality preference in the claims problem: A questionnaire study of cuts in earnings and pensions. Soc. Choice Welfare 33(4):533–557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2010) Responsibility for what? Fairness and individual responsibility. Eur. Econom. Rev. 54(3):429–441.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Hole AD, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2007) The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(3):818–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Konow J, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2013) Just luck: An experimental study of risk taking and fairness. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(3):1398–1413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):817–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cherry TL, Frykblom P, Shogren JF (2002) Hardnose the dictator. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(4):1218–1221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J. Econom. Literature 47(2):1–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Datta S, Satten GA (2005) Rank-sum tests for clustered data. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 100(471):908–915.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Frutos MA (1999) Coalitional manipulation in a bankruptcy problem. Rev. Econom. Design 4(3):255–272.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Engelmann D, Strobel M (2004) Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 94(4):857–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quart. J. Econom. 114(3):817–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Glätzle-Rützler D, Sutter M (2013) The development of egalitarianism, altruism, spite and parochialism in childhood and adolescence. Eur. Econom. Rev. 64(1):369–383.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Naef M, Schmidt KM (2006) Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments: Comment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(5):1912–1917.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frohlich N, Oppenheimer J, Kurki A (2004) Modeling other-regarding preferences and an experimental test. Public Choice 119(1–2):91–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Riedl A (2005) Moral property rights in bargaining with infeasible claims. Management Sci. 51(2):249–263.Link, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Riedl A (2006) Dividing justly in bargaining problems with claims. Soc. Choice Welfare 27(3):571–594.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gaertner W, Schwettmann L (2017) Burden sharing in deficit countries: A questionnaire-experimental investigation. SERIEs 8(2):113–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herrero C, Moreno-Ternero JD, Ponti G (2010) On the adjudication of conflicting claims: An experimental study. Soc. Choice Welfare 34(1):145–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoffman E, McCabe K, Shachat K, Smith V (1994) Preferences, property rights and anonymity in bargaining games. Games Econom. Behav. 7(3):346–380.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hotchkiss ES, John K, Moordadian RM, Thorburn KS (2008) Bankruptcy and the resolution of financial distress. Espen Eckbo B, ed. Handbook of Empirical Corporate Finance, Vol. 2, Chap. 14 (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 234–287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jakiela P (2015) How fair shares compare: Experimental evidence from two cultures. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 118:40–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ju B-G, Miyagawa E, Sakai T (2007) Non-manipulable division rules in claim problems and generalizations. J. Econom. Theory 132(1):1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karagözoğlu E (2014) A noncooperative approach to bankruptcy problems with an endogenous estate. Ann. Oper. Res. 217(1):299–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kary T, Eckhouse B (2017) SunEdison sets bankruptcy exit with nothing for shareholders. Bloomberg (July 25), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-25/sunedison-sets-bankruptcy-exit-with-nothing-for-shareholders.Google Scholar
• Keay A, Walton P (1999) The preferential debts’ regime in liquidation law: In the public interest? Company Financial Insolvency Law Rev. 3:84–105.Google Scholar
• Kibris A, Kibris Ö (2013) On the investment implications of bankruptcy laws. Games Econom. Behav. 80(1):85–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konow J (1996) A positive theory of economic fairness. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 31(1):13–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konow J (2000) Fair shares: Accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(4):1072–1091.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mollerstrom J, Reme B-A, Sørensen EØ (2015) Luck, choice and responsibility: An experimental study of fairness views. J. Public Econom. 131:33–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreno-Ternero JD, Villar A (2006) The TAL-family of rules for bankruptcy problems. Soc. Choice Welfare 27(2):231–249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Neill B (1982) A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud. Math. Soc. Sci. 2(4):345–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oxoby R, Spraggon J (2008) Mine and yours: Property rights in dictator games. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 65(3–4):703–713.Crossref, Google Scholar
• R Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).Google Scholar
• Rodriguez-Lara I (2016) Equity and bargaining power in ultimatum games. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 130:144–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rodriguez-Lara I, Moreno-Garrido L (2012) Self-interest and fairness: Self-serving choices of justice principles. Experiment. Econom. 15(1):158–175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shafir E, Tversky A (1992) Thinking through uncertainty: Nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cognitive Psych. 24(4):449–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thomson W (2003) Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: A survey. Math. Soc. Sci. 45(3):249–297.Crossref, Google Scholar