Coalition Formation in a Legislative Voting Game<xref ref-type="fn" rid="f1" ptype="fmic61182" citart="citart1"><sup></sup></xref>
نویسنده
چکیده
We experimentally investigate the Jackson and Moselle (2002) model where legislators bargain over policy proposals and the allocation of private goods. Key comparative static predictions of the model hold with the introduction of private goods, including “strange bedfellow” coalitions. Private goods help to secure legislative compromise and increase the likelihood of proposals passing, an outcome not predicted by the theory but a staple of the applied political economy literature. Coalition formation is better characterized by an “efficient equal split” between coalition partners than the subgame perfect equilibrium prediction, which has implications for stable political party formation. (JEL C78, D72, H41)
منابع مشابه
Affect as a Decision-Making System of the Present<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1" ptype="f668644" citart="citart1" /><xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn2" ptype="f668644" citart="citart1" />
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. .
متن کاملFinancial Deprivation Prompts Consumers to Seek Scarce Goods<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1" ptype="f664038" citart="citart1" /><xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn2" ptype="f664038" citart="citart1" />
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
متن کاملYou Get What You Pay For? Self-Construal Influences Price-Quality Judgments<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1" ptype="f670034" citart="citart1" /><xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn2" ptype="f670034" citart="citart1" />
متن کامل
Does Money Illusion Matter?: Reply<xref ref-type="fn" rid="f1" ptype="faer10431063" citart="citart1"><sup></sup></xref>
The data in Fehr and Tyran (2001) and Petersen and Winn (2014) show that money illusion plays an important role in nominal price adjustment after a fully anticipated negative monetary shock. Money illusion affects subjects’ expectations, and causes pronounced nominal inertia after a negative shock but much less inertia after a positive shock. Thus Petersen and Winn (2014) provide a misleading i...
متن کاملCommunication, Renegotiation, and the Scope for Collusion<xref ref-type="fn" rid="f1" ptype="fmic62247" citart="citart1"><sup></sup></xref>
We study the effect of communication in an experimental game where cooperation is consistent with equilibrium play if players share an understanding that cheating will be punished. Consistent with communication acting as a coordinating device, credible preplay threats to punish cheating are the most effective message to facilitate collusion. Promises to collude also improve cooperation. Credibl...
متن کامل