IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jpbect/v24y2022i6p1463-1501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal voting rules for international organizations, with an application to the United Nations

Author

Listed:
  • Johann Caro‐Burnett

Abstract

This paper studies a self‐enforcing mechanism for an international organization that interacts repeatedly over time. A random shock determines which countries would be in favor of or against taking a collective action. If the organization wants to take the action, incentives must be provided. The optimal stationary equilibrium is equivalent to a mechanism characterized by voting weights. When the discount factor is not too high, the voting weights are random. Moreover, within a class of parameters, the optimal mechanism mimics the way voting power is distributed among United Nations members via Security Council seats. That is, the model rationalizes the existence of a council with permanent members who have veto power, nonpermanent members, and the exact number of permanent and nonpermanent members observed at the Security Council.

Suggested Citation

  • Johann Caro‐Burnett, 2022. "Optimal voting rules for international organizations, with an application to the United Nations," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 24(6), pages 1463-1501, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jpbect:v:24:y:2022:i:6:p:1463-1501
    DOI: 10.1111/jpet.12607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpet.12607
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jpet.12607?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davide Ticchi & Andrea Vindigni, 2010. "Endogenous Constitutions," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(543), pages 1-39, March.
    2. Downs, George W. & Rocke, David M. & Barsoom, Peter N., 1996. "Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(3), pages 379-406, July.
    3. Stephen Ansolabehere & James M. Snyder & Aaron B. Strauss & Michael M. Ting, 2005. "Voting Weights and Formateur Advantages in the Formation of Coalition Governments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 550-563, July.
    4. Lagunoff, Roger, 2009. "Dynamic stability and reform of political institutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 569-583, November.
    5. Jihong Lee & Hamid Sabourian, 2011. "Efficient Repeated Implementation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(6), pages 1967-1994, November.
    6. Salvador Barbera & Matthew O. Jackson, 2006. "On the Weights of Nations: Assigning Voting Weights in a Heterogeneous Union," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(2), pages 317-339, April.
    7. Yaron Azrieli & Semin Kim, 2014. "Pareto Efficiency And Weighted Majority Rules," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1067-1088, November.
    8. Philippe Aghion & Alberto Alesina & Francesco Trebbi, 2004. "Endogenous Political Institutions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(2), pages 565-611.
    9. David Martimort & Wilfried Sand-Zantman, 2016. "A Mechanism Design Approach To Climate-Change Agreements," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 669-718, June.
    10. Yaron Azrieli & Semin Kim, 2014. "Pareto Efficiency And Weighted Majority Rules," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55, pages 1067-1088, November.
    11. T. K. Ahn & R. Mark Isaac & Timothy C. Salmon, 2008. "Endogenous Group Formation," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 10(2), pages 171-194, April.
    12. Abreu, Dilip & Pearce, David & Stacchetti, Ennio, 1990. "Toward a Theory of Discounted Repeated Games with Imperfect Monitoring," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(5), pages 1041-1063, September.
    13. Matthew Gould & Matthew D. Rablen, 2016. "Equitable representation in councils: theory and an application to the United Nations Security Council," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 19-51, October.
    14. Eric Maskin, 1999. "Nash Equilibrium and Welfare Optimality," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 23-38.
    15. Eguia, Jon X., 2011. "Voting blocs, party discipline and party formation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 111-135, September.
    16. Schmitz, Patrick W. & Tröger, Thomas, 2012. "The (sub-)optimality of the majority rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 651-665.
    17. Voeten, Erik, 2001. "Outside Options and the Logic of Security Council Action," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(4), pages 845-858, December.
    18. Avner Kalay & Oǧuzhan Karakaş & Shagun Pant, 2014. "The Market Value of Corporate Votes: Theory and Evidence from Option Prices," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 69(3), pages 1235-1271, June.
    19. Nicolas Houy, 2007. "Endogenously Weighted Voting," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 9(6), pages 1079-1102, December.
    20. Mezzetti, Claudio & Renou, Ludovic, 2017. "Repeated Nash implementation," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    21. Ilyana Kuziemko & Eric Werker, 2006. "How Much Is a Seat on the Security Council Worth? Foreign Aid and Bribery at the United Nations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(5), pages 905-930, October.
    22. Anthony M. Marino, 2007. "Delegation versus Veto in Organizational Games of Strategic Communication," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 9(6), pages 979-992, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Āzacis, Helmuts & Vida, Péter, 2019. "Repeated implementation: A practical characterization," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 336-367.
    2. Lombardi, M. & Yoshihara, N., 2018. "Treading a fine line: (Im)possibilities for Nash implementation with partially-honest individuals," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 203-216.
    3. Karakas, Leyla D., 2016. "Political turnover and the accumulation of democratic capital," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 195-213.
    4. Yaron Azrieli, 2018. "The price of ‘one person, one vote’," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(2), pages 353-385, February.
    5. Semin Kim, 2016. "Ordinal Versus Cardinal Voting Rules: A Mechanism Design Approach," Working papers 2016rwp-94, Yonsei University, Yonsei Economics Research Institute.
    6. Hans Peter Grüner & Thomas Tröger, 2019. "Linear Voting Rules," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 2037-2077, November.
    7. Hayashi, Takashi & Lombardi, Michele, 2019. "One-step-ahead implementation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 110-126.
    8. Moritz Drexl & Andreas Kleiner, 2018. "Why Voting? A Welfare Analysis," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 253-271, August.
    9. Alex Gershkov & Benny Moldovanu & Xianwen Shi, 2017. "Optimal Voting Rules," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(2), pages 688-717.
    10. Azacis, Helmuts & Vida, Peter, 2021. "Fighting Collusion: An Implementation Theory Approach," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2021/19, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    11. Alex Gershkov & Benny Moldovanu & Xianwen Shi, 2013. "Optimal Mechanism Design without Money," Working Papers tecipa-481, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    12. Korpela, Ville & Lombardi, Michele & Vartiainen, Hannu, 2020. "Do coalitions matter in designing institutions?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    13. Kikuchi, Kazuya & Koriyama, Yukio, 2023. "The winner-take-all dilemma," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(3), July.
    14. Michele Lombardi & Naoki Yoshihara, 2020. "Partially-honest Nash implementation: a full characterization," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 871-904, October.
    15. Axel Dreher & Stephan Klasen & James Raymond Vreeland & Eric Werker, 2013. "The Costs of Favoritism: Is Politically Driven Aid Less Effective?," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(1), pages 157-191.
    16. Vitaly Malyshev, 2021. "Optimal majority threshold in a stochastic environment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 427-446, April.
    17. Bartolini, David & Santolini, Raffaella, 2017. "Political institutions behind good governance," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 68-85.
    18. Axel Dreher & Matthew Gould & Matthew Rablen & James Vreeland, 2014. "The determinants of election to the United Nations Security Council," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 51-83, January.
    19. Helmuts Āzacis, 2020. "Repeated implementation with overlapping generations of agents," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(2), pages 275-299, August.
    20. Erasmus Kersting & Christopher Kilby, 2019. "The rise of supplemental lending at the World Bank," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 52(4), pages 1655-1698, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jpbect:v:24:y:2022:i:6:p:1463-1501. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/apettea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.