Policy Reversals and Electoral Competition with Privately Informed Parties
AbstractWe develop a spatial model of competition between two policy-motivated parties. Parties know a state of the world which determines which policies are desirable for voters, while voters do not. The announced positions of the parties serve as signals to the voters concerning the parties' private information. In all separating equilibria, when the left-wing party attains power, the policies it implements are to the right of the policies implemented by the right-wing party when it attains power. The intuition behind this result is that when right-wing policies become more attractive, the left party moves toward the right in order to be assured of winning, while the right-wing party stays put in a radical stance.
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM in its series Working Papers with number 0003.
Length: 38 pages
Date of creation: Jan 2000
Date of revision: Jul 2000
spatial models; party competition; asymmetric information; separating equilibria;
Other versions of this item:
- Martinelli, Cesar & Matsui, Akihiko, 2002. " Policy Reversals and Electoral Competition with Privately Informed Parties," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 4(1), pages 39-61.
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.:
- Timothy Feddersen & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1997.
"Voting Behavior and Information Aggregation in Elections with Private Information,"
Econometric Society, vol. 65(5), pages 1029-1058, September.
- Timothy Feddersen & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1997. "Voting Behavior and Information Aggregation in Elections With Private Information," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1560, David K. Levine.
- Timothy Feddersen & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1994. "Voting Behavior and Information Aggregation in Elections with Private Information," Discussion Papers 1117, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Robert Gibbons, 1988.
"Learning in Equilibrium Models of Arbitration,"
485, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Mariano Tommasi, 1995.
"Why Does it Take a Nixon to go to China?,"
UCLA Economics Working Papers
728, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Banks, Jeffrey S., 1990. "A model of electoral competition with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 309-325, April.
- Roger B. Myerson, 1994.
"Extended Poisson Games and the Condorcet Jury Theorem,"
1103, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Myerson, Roger B., 1998. "Extended Poisson Games and the Condorcet Jury Theorem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 111-131, October.
- Kyle Bagwell & Garey Ramey, 1991.
"Oligopoly Limit Pricing,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(2), pages 155-172, Summer.
- Rodrik, Dani, 1993. "The Positive Economics of Policy Reform," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 356-61, May.
- Schultz, Christian, 1996.
"Polarization and Inefficient Policies,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 331-44, April.
- Harrington, Joseph E, Jr, 1993. "Economic Policy, Economic Performance, and Elections," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(1), pages 27-42, March.
- Roemer, J.E., 1992. "The Emergence of Party Ideology when Voter Are Uncertain about How the Economy Works," Papers 396, California Davis - Institute of Governmental Affairs.
- John Duggan, 2003.
"Electoral Competition with Privately Informed Candidates,"
Theory workshop papers
505798000000000029, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Bernhardt, Dan & Duggan, John & Squintani, Francesco, 2007. "Electoral competition with privately-informed candidates," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 1-29, January.
- Amal Sanyal & Kunal Sengupta, 2005. "Reputation, Cheap Talk and Delegation," Game Theory and Information 0501001, EconWPA.
- Tilman Klumpp, 2011. "Populism, Partisanship, and the Funding of Political Campaigns," Emory Economics 1107, Department of Economics, Emory University (Atlanta).
- Müller, Wieland & Spiegel, Yossi & Yehezkel, Yaron, 2009.
"Oligopoly limit-pricing in the lab,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 373-393, May.
- Müller, W. & Spiegel, Y. & Yehezkel, Y., 2009. "Oligopoly limit-pricing in the lab," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-3125107, Tilburg University.
- Müller, W. & Spiegel, Y. & Yehezkel, Y., 2006. "Oligopoly Limit-Pricing in the Lab," Discussion Paper 2006-013, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
- Kunal Sengupta & Amal Sanyal, 2004. "Delegation in a Cheap-Talk Game: A Voting Example," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 471, Econometric Society.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Diego Dominguez).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.