Why do people veto? An experimental analysis of the evaluation and the consequences of varying degrees of veto power
AbstractBy vetoing one question mutually efficient agreements. On the other hand, the threat of vetoing may prevent exploitation. Based on a generalization of ultimatum bargaining (Suleiman, 1996), we first elicit the responders' certainty equivalents for three different degrees of veto power. Afterwards the corresponding bargaining rule is implemented. The experimental data reveal that proposers are afraid of more veto power, and that responders only care about commanding veto power but not its degree.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Institute of SocioEconomics in its journal Homo Oeconomicus.
Volume (Year): 18 (2001)
Issue (Month): ()
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Von-Melle-Park 5, 20146 Hamburg
Phone: 49 40 42838-4457
Fax: 49 40 42838-6329
Web page: http://www.uni-hamburg.de/fachbereiche-einrichtungen/fb03/ise/index.html
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Werner Güth & Judit Kóvaczs, 2000. "Why do People Veto? An Experimental Analysis of the Valuation and the Consequences of Varying Degrees of Veto Power," CESifo Working Paper Series 308, CESifo Group Munich.
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.:
- Bolton, Gary E, 1991.
"A Comparative Model of Bargaining: Theory and Evidence,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1096-136, December.
- G. Bolton, 2010. "A comparative model of bargaining: theory and evidence," Levine's Working Paper Archive 263, David K. Levine.
- Frank, Bjorn, 1996. "The use of internal games: The case of addiction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 651-660, November.
- Matthew Rabin., 1992.
"Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics,"
Economics Working Papers
92-199, University of California at Berkeley.
- Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
- M. Rabin, 2001. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," Levine's Working Paper Archive 511, David K. Levine.
- Georg Kirchsteiger, 1994.
"The role of envy in ultimatum games,"
ULB Institutional Repository
2013/5925, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- V. Prasnikar & A. Roth, 1998.
"Considerations of fairness and strategy: experimental data from sequential games,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
451, David K. Levine.
- Prasnikar, Vesna & Roth, Alvin E, 1992. "Considerations of Fairness and Strategy: Experimental Data from Sequential Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 107(3), pages 865-88, August.
- Suleiman, Ramzi, 1996. "Expectations and fairness in a modified Ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 531-554, November.
- repec:att:wimass:9323 is not listed on IDEAS
- Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
- Roth, Alvin E. & Erev, Ido, 1995. "Learning in extensive-form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 164-212.
- Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, .
"A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation,"
IEW - Working Papers
004, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory Of Fairness, Competition, And Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868, August.
- Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., . "A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation," Chapters in Economics, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 1998. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation," CEPR Discussion Papers 1812, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 1999. "A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation," Munich Reprints in Economics 20650, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Bolle, Friedel, 1990. "High reward experiments without high expenditure for the experimenter?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 157-167, June.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-48, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Matthew Braham) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Matthew Braham to update the entry or send us the correct address.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.