noncooperative bargaining
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

16
(FIVE YEARS 0)

H-INDEX

8
(FIVE YEARS 0)

2020 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
Guangjing Yang ◽  
Hao Sun ◽  
Dongshuang Hou ◽  
Genjiu Xu

2005 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 981-1004 ◽  
Author(s):  
James M Snyder ◽  
Michael M Ting ◽  
Stephen Ansolabehere

Organizations often distribute resources through weighted voting. We analyze this setting using a noncooperative bargaining game based on the Baron-Ferejohn (1989) model. Unlike analyses derived from cooperative game theory, we find that each voter's expected payoff is proportional to her voting weight. An exception occurs when many high-weight voters exist, as low-weight voters may expect disproportionately high payoffs due to proposal power. The model also predicts that, ex post, the coalition formateur (the party chosen to form a coalition) will receive a disproportionately high payoff. Using data from coalition governments from 1946 to 2001, we find strong evidence of such formateur effects.


2002 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 490-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Manzini ◽  
Marco Mariotti

2000 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 627-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Diermeier ◽  
Randolph T. Stevenson

We present an empirical assessment of Lupia and Strøm's noncooperative bargaining model of cabinet terminations. We construct a stochastic version of the model and derive several testable implications. As the next mandatory election approaches: (1) the probability of an early election increases; (2) a cabinet's risks of being replaced without an intermediate election may be flat or even decrease; and (3) the overall chance that a cabinet falls (for whatever reason) increases. Using nonparametric duration analysis on a 15-country data set, we find qualified support for the Lupia and Strøm model. We conclude that the strategic approach is more promising than the nonstrategic alternative, but a more fully dynamic strategic model will be required to account for the dynamics of cabinet stability.


1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 813-823 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eyal Winter

The consequences of veto power in committees is analyzed using the approach of noncooperative bargaining theory. It is first shown that in equilibrium nonveto players do not share in the benefits gained by the decision making of the committee, that is, in every equilibrium outcome of the bargaining game, nonveto players earn zero. Some measures for reducing the excessive power of veto members in committees are analyzed. Specifically, I study the effects of imposing a deadline on negotiations and of expanding the committee by increasing the number of nonveto players. Quantitative results are given for the case of the UN Security Council.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document