The option to wait in collective decisions and optimal majority rules
AbstractWe consider a model in which voters over time receive more information about their preferences concerning an irreversible social decision. Voters can either implement the project in the first period, or they can postpone the decision to the second period. We analyze the effects of different majority rules. Individual first period voting behavior may become “less conservative” under supermajority rules, and it is even possible that a project is implemented in the first period under a supermajority rule that would not be implemented under simple majority rule.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Public Economics.
Volume (Year): 96 (2012)
Issue (Month): 5 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505578
Supermajority rules; Information; Investment; Option value;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Glazer, Amihai & Konrad, Kai A., 1993.
"The evaluation of risky projects by voters,"
Journal of Public Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 377-390, October.
- Glazer, A. & Konrad, K., 1991. "The Evaluation Of Risky Projects By Voters," Papers 90-91-13, California Irvine - School of Social Sciences.
- Glazer, A. & Konrad, K.A., 1991. "The Evaluation of Risky Projects by Voters," GSIA Working Papers 1991-40, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
- Timothy J. Feddersen & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1995.
"The Swing Voter's Curse,"
1064, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Matthias Messner & Mattias K. Polborn, 2004.
"Voting on Majority Rules,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Oxford University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 115-132.
- Jinhui Bai & Roger Lagunoff, 2008.
"On the 'Faustian' Dynamics of Policy and Political Power,"
gueconwpa~08-08-02, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
- Jinhui H. Bai & Roger Lagunoff, 2011. "On the Faustian Dynamics of Policy and Political Power," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 78(1), pages 17-48.
- Jinhui Bai & Roger Lagunoff, 2007. "On the “Faustian” Dynamics of Policy and Political Power," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000001627, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Roger Lagunoff & Jinhui Bai, 2008. "On the ``Faustian Dynamics" of Policy and Political Power," 2008 Meeting Papers 456, Society for Economic Dynamics.
- Guttman, Joel M., 1998. "Unanimity and majority rule: the calculus of consent reconsidered," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 189-207, May.
- Bruno Strulovici, 2010.
"Learning While Voting: Determinants of Collective Experimentation,"
Econometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 933-971, 05.
- Bruno Strulovici, 2008. "Learning while voting: determinants of collective experimentation," Economics Papers 2008-W08, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
- Bruno Strulovici, 2008. "Learning While Voting: Determinants of Collective Experimentation," Economics Series Working Papers 2008-WO8, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Glazer, Amihai, 1989. "Politics and the Choice of Durability," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1207-13, December.
- Tullock, Gordon, 1998. "Reply to Guttman," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 215-218, May.
- Caplin, Andrew S & Nalebuff, Barry J, 1988. "On 64%-Majority Rule," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(4), pages 787-814, July.
- Dal Bo, Ernesto, 2006. "Committees with supermajority voting yield commitment with flexibility," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(4-5), pages 573-599, May.
- Gersbach, Hans, 1993. "Politics and the Choice of Durability: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(3), pages 670-73, June.
- Gradstein, Mark, 1999. "Optimal taxation and fiscal constitution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 471-485, June.
- Fernandez, Raquel & Rodrik, Dani, 1991. "Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1146-55, December.
- Philippe Aghion & Patrick Bolton, 2003.
"Incomplete Social Contracts,"
Journal of the European Economic Association,
MIT Press, vol. 1(1), pages 38-67, 03.
- Hans Gersbach, 1993. "Environmental Preservation and Majority Decisions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(2), pages 147-155.
- Christian Roessler & Sandro Shelegia & Bruno Strulovici, 2013. "The Roman Metro Problem: Dynamic Voting and the Limited Power of Commitment," Discussion Papers 1560, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.