Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:05:32.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bargaining in Legislatures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 1989

David P. Baron  and
John A. Ferejohn
David P. Baron
Affiliation:
Stanford University
John A. Ferejohn
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bargaining in legislatures is conducted according to formal rules specifying who may make proposals and how they will be decided. Legislative outcomes depend on those rules and on the structure of the legislature. Although the social choice literature provides theories about voting equilibria, it does not endogenize the formation of the agenda on which the voting is based and rarely takes into account the institutional structure found in legislatures. In our theory members of the legislature act noncooperatively in choosing strategies to serve their own districts, explicitly taking into account the strategies members adopt in response to the sequential nature of proposal making and voting. The model permits the characterization of a legislative equilibrium reflecting the structure of the legislature and also allows consideration of the choice of elements of that structure in a context in which the standard, institution-free model of social choice theory yields no equilibrium.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 83 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 1181 - 1206
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abreu, Dilip, and Rubinstein, Ariel. 1988. “The Structure of Nash Equilibria in Repeated Games with Finite Automata.” Econometrica 56:1259–81.10.2307/1913097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Stanley, and Smith, Stephen. 1988. “Craftmanship on Capitol Hill: The Pattern and Diversity in Special Rules.” University of Minnesota. Typescript.Google Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey, and Gasmi, Farid. 1987. “Endogenous Agenda Formation in Three-Person Committees.” Social Choice and Welfare 4:133–52.10.1007/BF00450995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, David P. 1989. “A Noncooperative Theory of Legislative Coalitions.” American Journal of Political Science 33:1048–84.10.2307/2111120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, David P., and Ferejohn, John A.. 1989. “The Power to Propose.” In Models of Strategic Choice in Politics, ed. Ordeshook, Peter C.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Binmore, Kenneth. 1985. “Modeling Rational Players.” Working Paper no. 85–36. London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Binmore, Kenneth. 1986. “Bargaining and Coalitions.” In Game-theoretic Models of Bargaining, ed. Roth, Alvin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dutta, B., and Gevers, Louis. 1981. “On Majority Rules and Perfect Equilibrium Allocation of a Shrinking Cake.” Namur University (Belgium). Typescript.Google Scholar
Epple, Dennis, and Riordan, Michael H.. 1987. “Cooperation and Punishment under Repeated Majority Voting.” Public Choice 55:41–73.10.1007/BF00156810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John A., Fiorina, Morris, and McKelvey, Richard. 1987. “Sophisticated Voting and Agenda Independence in the Distributive Politics Setting.” American Journal of Political Science 31:169–93.10.2307/2111329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Krehbiel, Keith. 1987. “Collective Decision-Making and Standing Committees: An Informational Rationale for Restrictive Amendment Procedures.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3:287–335.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Krehbiel, Keith. 1989. “Asymmetric Information and Legislative Rules with a Heterogeneous Committee.” American Journal of Political Science 33:459–90.10.2307/2111156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Joseph E. Jr., 1986. “The Alternating Offer Model As a Voting Procedure.” Johns Hopkins University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Harrington, Joseph E. Jr., 1987. “The Role of Risk Preferences in Bargaining for the Class of Symmetric Voting Rules.” Johns Hopkins University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Herrero, Maria. 1985. A Strategic Bargaining Approach to Market Institutions. Ph.D. diss., University of London.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1989. “A Rationale for Restrictive Rules.” In Home Style and Washington Work, ed. Fiorina, Morris and Rohde, David. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold D. 1958. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? New York: Meridian.Google Scholar
Miller, Nicholas. 1986. “Competing Agenda Setters with Policy Preferences.” University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Typescript.Google Scholar
Moulin, Herve. 1979. “Dominance Solvable Voting Schemes.” Econometrica 47:1337–51.10.2307/1914004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oleszek, Walter J. 1984. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. 2d ed. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1962. The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, Ariel. 1982. “Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model.” Econometrica 50:97–109.10.2307/1912531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1960. Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1979. “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models.” American Journal of Political Science 23:27–59.10.2307/2110770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, J. 1986. “Non-cooperative Bargaining Theory: An Introduction.” Review of Economic Studies 53:709–24.10.2307/2297715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, Barry R. 1979. “A Rational Choice Perspective on Congressional Norms.” American Journal of Political Science 23:245–62.10.2307/2111001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.