Resource Allocation

Part of the Applied Optimization book series (APOP, volume 29)


Since the final grades (SMART, Additive ABP) and the terminal scores (Multiplicative ABP) provide global preference information in a cardinal form they may be used to allocate scarce resources to the alternatives under consideration. That is at least the working hypothesis of the present chapter. The feasibility of the approach depends largely on the sensitivity of the results. The proposed allocation should be robust, that is, hardly affected by the numerical scale for the gradations of comparative judgement and rather insensitive to the choice of the cost-benefit relationship. Allocation procedures should also be fair. The benefits and/or the costs to be allocated to the parties in a distribution problem must be proportional to the effort, the strength, and/or the needs of the respective parties. The key observation in the present chapter is that proportionality can be pursued with methods which are based upon ratio information. The issues in question will be considered here via a number of case studies.


Geometric Scale Credit Point Ratio Information Applied Scientific Research Ordinal Information 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References to Chapter 7

  1. 1.
    Aristotle, “Ethics”, in the translation by J. Warrington. Dent and Sons, London, 1963.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beckerman, W., “An Introduction to National Income Analysis”. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dennis, A., George, R.J.F., Jessup, L.M., Nunamaker, J.F., and Vogel, D.R., “Information Technology to support Electronic Meetings”. MIS Quarterly 12, 591–624, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deutsch, M, “Equity, Equality, and Need: What Determines which Value will be Used as the Basis of Distributive Justice?” Journal of Social Issues 31, 137–149, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deutsch, M., “Distributive Justice”. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Fandel, G., und Gal, T., “Umverteilung der Mittel für Lehre und Forschung unter den Universitatän”. Diskussionsbeitrag 248, FB Wirtschaftswissenschaft, Fernuniversität Hagen, D-58084 Hagen, Deutschland, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Fishburn, P.C., and Sarin, R.K., “Fairness and Social Risk I: Unaggregated Analysis”. Management Science 40, 1174–1188, 1994.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 9.
    Kasperson, R.E. (ed.), “Equity Issues in Radioactive Waste Management”. Oelschlager, Gunn, and Hain, Cambridge, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Davy, B., Faast, A., and Fitzgerald, K., “Hazardous Waste Cleanup and Facility Siting in Central Europe: the Austrian Case”. Technical Report GZ 308.903/3-43/92, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Lootsma, F.A., “Numerical Scaling of Human Judgement in Pairwise-Comparison Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis”. In G. Mitra (ed.), “Mathematical Models for Decision Support”. Springer, Berlin, 1988, pp. 57–88.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Lootsma, F.A., “The French and the American School in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis”. RAIRO/Recherche Opérationnelle 24, 263–285, 1990. A short version appeared in A. Goicoechea, L. Duckstein, and S. Zionts (eds.), “Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis”. Springer, New York, 1992, pp. 253-268.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Lootsma, F.A., Mensch, T.C.A., and Vos, F., “Multi-Criteria Analysis and Budget Reallocation in Long-Term Research Planning”. European Journal of Operational Research 47, 293–305, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 14.
    Lootsma, F.A., and Bots, P.W.G., “The Assignment of Scores for Output-Based Research Funding”. To appear in the Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Lootsma, F.A., Ramanathan, R., and Schuijt, H., “Fairness and Equity via Concepts of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis”. In T. J. Stewart and R. van den Honert (eds), “Trends in Multi-Criteria Decision Making”. Springer, Berlin, 1998, pp. 215–226.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Raan, A.F.J. van, “Advanced Bibliometric Methods to Assess Research Performance and Scientific Development”. Research Evaluation 3, 151–166, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Raan, A.F.J. van, “Advanced Bibliometric Methods as Quantitative Core of Peer Review Based Evaluation and Foresight Exercises”. Scientometrics 36, 397–420, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 18.
    Messick, D.M., and Cook, K.S. (eds.), “Equity Theory, Psychological and Sociological Perspectives”. Praeger, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Young, HP., “Equity in Theory and Practice”. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Personalised recommendations