1,720,993 research outputs found
On the distribution of public funding to political parties
No full textThe distribution of direct public funding to political parties is based on two criteria: (1) performance at the election (funding per vote), or (2) representation in the parliament (funding per seat). Using a two-party group turnout model, we compare the effect of the two funding systems on parties’ mobilization effort and the equilibrium turnout. Allowing one party to have a larger support than the other, we uncover interesting differences regarding the equilibrium structure: while in the unique equilibrium of per seat funding systems both parties exert the same amount of effort, a per vote funding system results in an asymmetric equilibrium in which the advantaged party exerts higher effort than its opponent. We furthermore show that, at the same cost, a per vote funding system always yields higher turnout than a per seat funding system, sacrificing the representativity of the electoral outcome
Replication Data for: Police Militarization and Local Sheriff Elections
No full textReplication material for the paper “Police Militarization and Local Sheriff Elections” by Christos Mavridis, Orestis Troumpounis, and Maurizio Zanardi; published in the Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization (2024)
Technological change, campaign spending and polarization
Full text linkWe present a model of electoral competition with endogenous platforms and campaign spending where the division of voters between impressionable and ideological is also endogenous and depends on parties’ strategic platform choices. Our approach results in a tractable model that provides interesting comparative statics on the effect of recent technological advancements. For instance, we can accommodate a new justification behind the well-documented simultaneous increase in campaign spending and polarization: an increase in the effectiveness of electoral advertising, or a decrease in the electorate’s political awareness, surely increases polarization and may also increase campaign spending
Strategic choice of sharing rules in collective contests
Full text linkCompetition between groups often involves prizes that have both a public and a private component. The exact nature of the prize not only affects the strategic choice of the sharing rules determining its allocation but also gives rise to an interesting phenomenon not observed when the prize is either purely public or purely private. Indeed, we show that in the two-groups contest, for most degrees of privateness of the prize, the large group uses its sharing rule as a mean to exclude the small group from the competition, a situation called monopolization. Conversely, there is a degree of relative privateness above which the small group, besides being active, even outperforms the large group in terms of winning probabilities, giving rise to the celebrated group size paradox
Participation quorums in costly meetings
No full textMeetings of shareholders, societies, and clubs often require a minimal participation quorum. In the absence of a quorum, no valid decisions can be made; thus, decisions are postponed to a later meeting. This paper examines the effect of such quorum constraints on both individual behavior and collective outcomes in a model of costly meetings. We show that when a binding quorum constraint delivers an immediate decision, it also induces a welfare loss with respect to the outcome that prevails when no quorum applies, potentially including policy distortions. When the quorum requirement is high and causes the decision to be postponed, the number of participants in the (second) meeting may decrease with respect to the zero-quorum rule
Prize-sharing rules in collective rent-seeking
No full textWe review our knowledge as to how different ways of sharing a prize among the members of a group in collective rent-seeking affect individuals' incentives to contribute to their group's aggregate effort. Starting with Nitzan (1991), the literature has considered both exogenous and endogenous sharing rules, while it has assumed that the choice of such rules may occur under either public or private information. In turn, group sharing rules affect the extent of total rent dissipation, the occurrence of the group size paradox, group formation, and the choice between productive and appropriative activities
Sequential choice of sharing rules in collective contests
Full text linkGroups competing for a prize need to determine how to distribute it among their members in case of victory. Considering competition between two groups of different size, we show that the small group's sharing rule is a strategic complement to the large group's sharing rule in the sense that if the small group chooses a more meritocratic sharing rule, the large group wishes to choose a more meritocratic rule as well. On the contrary, the large group's sharing rule is a strategic substitute to the small group's sharing rule, hence the timing of choice is crucial. For sufficiently private prizes, a switch from a simultaneous choice to the small group being the leader consists in a Pareto improvement and reduces aggregate effort. On the contrary, when the large group is the leader, aggregate effort increases. As a result, the equilibrium timing is such that the small group chooses its sharing rule first. If the prize is not private enough, the small group retires from the competition and switching from a simultaneous to a sequential timing may reverse the results in terms of aggregate effort. The sequential timing also guarantees that the small group never outperforms the large one
Linking individual and collective contests through noise level and sharing rules
Full text linkWe propose the use of Nitzan’s (1991) sharing rule in collective contests as a tractable way of modeling individual contests. This proposal (i) tractably introduces noise in Tullock contests when no closed form solution in pure strategies exists, (ii) satisfies the important property of homogeneity of degree zero, (iii) can be effort or noise equivalent to a standard Tullock contest
BEHAVIOR OF GROUPS IN CONTESTS - APPLICATIONS OF GAME THEORY
No full textopenAnalisi dei fattori che caratterizzano il contest: la dimensione del gruppo, le sue regole di condivisione, la sua funzione di impatto, la funzione di successo del contest, e l’eterogeneità dei giocatori all'interno e tra i gruppi. Esame di alcuni studi sperimentali che testano previsioni teoriche.Analysis of the main factors characterizing a contest: the size of the group, its sharing rules, its impact function, the success of the contest, and the heterogeneity of players within and among groups. Examination of some experimental studies that test theoretical predictions
- …
