IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v18y2002i2p411-427.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking Political Bargaining: Policymaking with a Single Proposer

Author

Listed:
  • David M. Primo

Abstract

Most political bargaining in the U.S. system has two features which are constitutionally mandated: (1) only one actor can make a formal proposal, and (2) he or she can make an indefinite number of proposals. Existing work in economics and political science ignores at least one of these features. I construct a model incorporating both of these components of political bargaining. The main finding of this article is that time preferences and the number of periods have no effect on the equilibrium policy outcomes, which are identical to those first stated by Romer and Rosenthal in a one-period model. This result suggests that impatience and time preferences may not be key features of political bargaining. This model has implications for constitutional and statutory rules regarding bargaining: it can be applied to presidential appointments, legislation, citizen initiatives, vetoes and filibusters (e.g., Krehbiel's pivotal politics model), and term limits. Copyright 2002, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • David M. Primo, 2002. "Rethinking Political Bargaining: Policymaking with a Single Proposer," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 411-427, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:18:y:2002:i:2:p:411-427
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below 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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Justin Fox, 2006. "Legislative Cooperation among Impatient Legislators," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 18(1), pages 68-97, January.
    2. Matthias Dahm & Amihai Glazer, 2012. "How An Agenda Setter Induces Legislators to Adopt Policies They Oppose," Working Papers 111211, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    3. Farvaque, Etienne & Matsueda, Norimichi & Méon, Pierre-Guillaume, 2009. "How monetary policy committees impact the volatility of policy rates," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 534-546, December.
    4. Tim Groseclose, 2021. "One‐sided bargaining over a finite set of alternatives," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(5), pages 933-957, October.
    5. Tasos Kalandrakis, 2006. "Proposal Rights and Political Power," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(2), pages 441-448, April.
    6. Rosenthal, Howard & Zame, William R., 2022. "Sequential referenda with sophisticated voters," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    7. S. Nageeb Ali & Navin Kartik & Andreas Kleiner, 2023. "Sequential Veto Bargaining With Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(4), pages 1527-1562, July.
    8. Etienne Farvaque & Norimichi Matsueda & Pierre-Guillaume Méon, 2007. "How committees reduce the volatility of policy rates," DULBEA Working Papers 07-11.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Matthias Dahm & Amihai Glazer, 2012. "How An Agenda Setter Induces Legislators to Adopt Policies They Oppose," Working Papers 111211, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    10. David M. Primo & Sarah A. Binder & Forrest Maltzman, 2008. "Who Consents? Competing Pivots in Federal Judicial Selection," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 471-489, July.
    11. S. Nageeb Ali & Navin Kartik & Andreas Kleiner, 2022. "Sequential Veto Bargaining with Incomplete Information," Papers 2202.02462, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    12. Hankyoung Sung, 2004. "Bargaining and vetoing," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 688, Econometric Society.
    13. Cho, Seok-ju & Duggan, John, 2009. "Bargaining foundations of the median voter theorem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 851-868, March.
    14. Jinhee Jo & David M Primo & Yoji Sekiya, 2017. "Policy dynamics and electoral uncertainty in the appointments process," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(1), pages 124-148, January.
    15. Dahm, Matthias & Glazer, Amihai, 2010. "Repeated Agenda Setting and the Unanimous Approval of Bad Policies," Working Papers 2072/151549, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    16. Dahm, Matthias & Glazer, Amihai, 2015. "A carrot and stick approach to agenda-setting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 465-480.

    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:oup:jleorg:v:18:y:2002:i:2:p:411-427. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jleo .

    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.