IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jesaex/v3y2017i1d10.1007_s40881-017-0038-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The determinants of voting in multilateral bargaining games

Author

Listed:
  • Guillaume R. Fréchette

    (New York University)

  • Emanuel Vespa

    (UC Santa Barbara)

Abstract

Models of multilateral bargaining predict that agents would vote solely based on the share they are offered and that their vote is determined by whether that share is at least as high as the continuation value (CV) of the game. The standard experiment investigating behavior in multilateral bargaining is not well designed to determine if that is the case. Our experiment makes three changes to the typical design: it introduces substantial variation in the CV (using a within-subjects design and varying the discount factor), it generates variability in offers using computer-generated offers while retaining the equilibrium of the original game, and it uses belief elicitation. These changes allow us to consider whether behavioral voting rules that are independent of the CV or factors besides one’s own share are important to voting decisions. We find that the main determinant of votes is the share one is offered, but that when offers are believed to come from another participant, a proposal is less likely to be approved if the proposer tries to take a lot for himself. Nonetheless, the equilibrium voting rule, which is based on the CV of the game organizes choices better than behavioral rules that are independent of the CV.

Suggested Citation

  • Guillaume R. Fréchette & Emanuel Vespa, 2017. "The determinants of voting in multilateral bargaining games," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(1), pages 26-43, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jesaex:v:3:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40881-017-0038-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40881-017-0038-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40881-017-0038-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40881-017-0038-x?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marco Battaglini & Stephen Coate, 2007. "Inefficiency in Legislative Policymaking: A Dynamic Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 118-149, March.
    2. John Kagel & Hankyoung Sung & Eyal Winter, 2010. "Veto power in committees: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(2), pages 167-188, June.
    3. Baron, David P. & Ferejohn, John A., 1989. "Bargaining in Legislatures," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(4), pages 1181-1206, December.
    4. Guillaume Fréchette & John H. Kagel & Massimo Morelli, 2005. "Behavioral Identification in Coalitional Bargaining: An Experimental Analysis of Demand Bargaining and Alternating Offers," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1893-1937, November.
    5. Vespa, Emanuel I., 2016. "Malapportionment and multilateral bargaining: An experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 64-74.
    6. Agranov, Marina & Fréchette, Guillaume & Palfrey, Thomas & Vespa, Emanuel, 2016. "Static and dynamic underinvestment: An experimental investigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 125-141.
    7. Maria Montero, 2007. "Inequity Aversion May Increase Inequity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(519), pages 192-204, March.
    8. Edi Karni, 2009. "A Mechanism for Eliciting Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 603-606, March.
    9. Frã‰Chette, Guillaume R. & Kagel, John H. & Lehrer, Steven F., 2003. "Bargaining in Legislatures: An Experimental Investigation of Open versus Closed Amendment Rules," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(2), pages 221-232, May.
    10. Guillaume Fréchette & John Kagel & Massimo Morelli, 2012. "Pork versus public goods: an experimental study of public good provision within a legislative bargaining framework," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 49(3), pages 779-800, April.
    11. Chloe Tergiman, 2015. "Institution design and public good provision: an experimental study of the vote of confidence procedure," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 697-717, December.
    12. Gary E Bolton & Jordi Brandts & Axel Ockenfels, 2005. "Fair Procedures: Evidence from Games Involving Lotteries," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(506), pages 1054-1076, October.
    13. Blount, Sally, 1995. "When Social Outcomes Aren't Fair: The Effect of Causal Attributions on Preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 131-144, August.
    14. Nels Christiansen & Sotiris Georganas & John H. Kagel, 2014. "Coalition Formation in a Legislative Voting Game," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 182-204, February.
    15. Miller, Luis & Vanberg, Christoph, 2015. "Group size and decision rules in legislative bargaining," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 288-302.
    16. Luis Miller & Christoph Vanberg, 2013. "Decision costs in legislative bargaining: an experimental analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 373-394, June.
    17. Agranov, Marina & Tergiman, Chloe, 2014. "Communication in multilateral bargaining," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 75-85.
    18. Harrington, Joseph E, Jr, 1990. "The Role of Risk Preferences in Bargaining When Acceptance of a Proposal Requires Less than Unanimous Approval," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 135-154, June.
    19. Frechette, Guillaume & Kagel, John H. & Morelli, Massimo, 2005. "Nominal bargaining power, selection protocol, and discounting in legislative bargaining," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(8), pages 1497-1517, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nunnari, Salvatore, 2021. "Dynamic legislative bargaining with veto power: Theory and experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 186-230.
    2. Andrzej Baranski & Rebecca Morton, 2022. "The determinants of multilateral bargaining: a comprehensive analysis of Baron and Ferejohn majoritarian bargaining experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1079-1108, September.
    3. Dougherty, Keith L. & Kisaalita, Alice & McKissick, Jordan & Katz, Evan, 2020. "Stopping rules for majority voting: A public choice experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 353-364.
    4. Marina Agranov & Chloe Tergiman, 2019. "Communication in bargaining games with unanimity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 350-368, June.
    5. Maaser, Nicola & Paetzel, Fabian & Traub, Stefan, 2019. "Power illusion in coalitional bargaining: An experimental analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 433-450.
    6. Kim, Duk Gyoo, 2023. "“One Bite at the apple”: Legislative bargaining without replacement," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    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. Nunnari, Salvatore, 2021. "Dynamic legislative bargaining with veto power: Theory and experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 186-230.
    2. Miller, Luis & Montero, Maria & Vanberg, Christoph, 2018. "Legislative bargaining with heterogeneous disagreement values: Theory and experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 60-92.
    3. Andrzej Baranski & Rebecca Morton, 2022. "The determinants of multilateral bargaining: a comprehensive analysis of Baron and Ferejohn majoritarian bargaining experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1079-1108, September.
    4. Christiansen, Nels, 2015. "Greasing the wheels: Pork and public goods contributions in a legislative bargaining experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 64-79.
    5. Maaser, Nicola & Paetzel, Fabian & Traub, Stefan, 2019. "Power illusion in coalitional bargaining: An experimental analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 433-450.
    6. Vespa, Emanuel I., 2016. "Malapportionment and multilateral bargaining: An experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 64-74.
    7. Kim, Duk Gyoo, 2023. "“One Bite at the apple”: Legislative bargaining without replacement," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    8. Nunnari, Salvatore & Zapal, Jan, 2016. "Gambler's fallacy and imperfect best response in legislative bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 275-294.
    9. Duk Gyoo Kim & Wooyoung Lim, 2019. "Multilateral Bargaining over the Division of Losses," CESifo Working Paper Series 8011, CESifo.
    10. Tremewan, James & Vanberg, Christoph, 2018. "Voting rules in multilateral bargaining: using an experiment to relax procedural assumptions," Working Papers 0651, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    11. Merkel, Anna & Vanberg, Christoph, 2023. "Multilateral bargaining with subjective claims under majority vs. unanimity rule: An experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    12. Agranov, Marina & Tergiman, Chloe, 2014. "Communication in multilateral bargaining," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 75-85.
    13. Miller, Luis & Vanberg, Christoph, 2015. "Group size and decision rules in legislative bargaining," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 288-302.
    14. Marina Agranov & Chloe Tergiman, 2019. "Communication in bargaining games with unanimity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 350-368, June.
    15. Andrzej Baranski & John H. Kagel, 2015. "Communication in legislative bargaining," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 59-71, July.
    16. Nels Christiansen & John H. Kagel, 2019. "Reference point effects in legislative bargaining: experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(3), pages 735-752, September.
    17. Baron, David P. & Bowen, T. Renee & Nunnari, Salvatore, 2017. "Durable coalitions and communication: Public versus private negotiations," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 1-13.
    18. Kim, Chulyoung & Kim, Sang-Hyun & Lee, Jinhyuk & Lee, Joosung, 2022. "Strategic alliances in a veto game: An experimental study," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    19. Marco Battaglini & Thomas Palfrey, 2012. "The dynamics of distributive politics," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 49(3), pages 739-777, April.
    20. Duk Gyoo Kim & Sang‐Hyun Kim, 2022. "Multilateral bargaining with proposer selection contest," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(1), pages 38-73, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Multilateral bargaining; Baron–Ferejohn; Voting models; Intentions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection

    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:spr:jesaex:v:3:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40881-017-0038-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.