Group size and decision rules in legislative bargaining
AbstractWe conduct experiments to investigate the effects of different majority requirements on bargaining outcomes in small and large groups. In particular, we use a Baron-Ferejohn protocol and investigate the effects of decision rules on delay (number of bargaining rounds needed to reach agreement) and measures of "fairness" (inclusiveness of coalitions, equality of the distribution within a coalition). We find that larger groups and unanimity rule are associated with significantly larger decision making costs in the sense that first round proposals more often fail, leading to more costly delay. The higher rate of failure under unanimity rule and in large groups is a combination of three facts: (1) in these conditions, a larger number of individuals must agree, (2) an important fraction of individuals reject offers below the equal share, and (3) proposers demand more (relative to the equal share) in large groups.
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 University of the Basque Country - Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis II in its series DFAEII Working Papers with number DFAE-II;2014-01.
Date of creation:
Date of revision:
Postal: Dpto. de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico II, = Facultad de CC. Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad del País Vasco, Avda. Lehendakari Aguirre 83, 48015 Bilbao, Spain
Other versions of this item:
- Miller , Luis & Vanberg, Christoph, 2014. "Group size and decision rules in legislative bargaining," Working Papers 0558, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
- C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
- D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
- 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
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2014-03-30 (All new papers)
- NEP-CDM-2014-03-30 (Collective Decision-Making)
- NEP-EXP-2014-03-30 (Experimental Economics)
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.:
- 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.
- Guillaume Fréchette & John H. Kagel & Massimo Morelli, 2005.
"Behavioral Identification in Coalitional Bargaining: An Experimental Analysis of Demand Bargaining and Alternating Offers,"
Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1893-1937, November.
- G Frechette & J Kagel & M Morelli, 2004. "Behavioral Identification in Coalition Bargaining: An Experimental Analysis of Demand Bargaining and Alternating Offers," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000006, UCLA Department of Economics.
- John Kagel & Hankyoung Sung & Eyal Winter, 2010. "Veto power in committees: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 167-188, June.
- Maria Montero & Martin Sefton & Ping Zhang, 2005.
"Enlargement and the Balance of Power: an Experimental Study,"
2005-08, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
- Maria Montero & Martin Sefton & Ping Zhang, 2008. "Enlargement and the balance of power: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 69-87, January.
- Maria Montero & Martin Sefton & Ping Zhang, 2005. "Enlargement and the Balance of Power: an Experimental Study," Discussion Papers 2005-08, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
- Maria Montero & Martin Sefton & Ping Zhang, 2005. "Enlargement and the Balance of Power: An Experimental Study," Experimental 0507001, EconWPA.
- Drouvelis, Michalis & Montero, Maria & Sefton, Martin, 2010.
"Gaining power through enlargement: Strategic foundations and experimental evidence,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 274-292, July.
- Michalis Drouvelis & Maria Montero & Martin Sefton, . "Gaining Power through Enlargement: Strategic Foundations and Experimental Evidence," Discussion Papers 09/30, Department of Economics, University of York.
- Norman, Peter, 2002.
"Legislative Bargaining and Coalition Formation,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 322-353, February.
- Luis Miller & Christoph Vanberg, 2011.
"Decision costs in legislative bargaining: An experimental analysis,"
2011002, University of Oxford, Nuffield College.
- Luis Miller & Christoph Vanberg, 2013. "Decision costs in legislative bargaining: an experimental analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 373-394, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Alcira Macías Redondo).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.