IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v142y2023icp794-811.html

Stable constitutions

Author

Listed:
  • Jeong, Daeyoung
  • Kim, Semin

Abstract

We consider a constitution as a pair of voting rules (f,F) in which the given rule f is for the decision on the final outcome, and the base rule F is for the decision on the change of a voting rule. Which constitutions would stably survive? We define the concepts of interim/ex-post stability, whereby agents' preferences over the outcomes are privately/publicly known when they change a voting rule. We fully characterize the set of interim stable constitutions, which consist of anonymous voting rules. Furthermore, we show that it is equivalent to the set of ex-post stable constitutions. We compare the characteristics of three sets of stable constitutions—ex-ante, interim, and ex-post stable constitutions—and discuss the relationship of inclusions. We also discuss the environmental independence of the concepts of stability, the alternative definition of stability, and the stability of higher-level constitutions composed of more than two voting rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeong, Daeyoung & Kim, Semin, 2023. "Stable constitutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 794-811.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:142:y:2023:i:c:p:794-811
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2023.09.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825623001501
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2023.09.013?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klaus Kultti & Paavo Miettinen, 2009. "Stability of Constitutions," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 11(6), pages 891-896, December.
    2. André Blais & Jean-François Laslier & François Poinas & Karine Straeten, 2015. "Citizens’ preferences about voting rules: self-interest, ideology, and sincerity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 423-442, September.
    3. ,, 2014. "A dynamic theory of electoral competition," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(2), May.
    4. Lagunoff, Roger, 2009. "Dynamic stability and reform of political institutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 569-583, November.
    5. Yaron Azrieli & Semin Kim, 2014. "Pareto Efficiency And Weighted Majority Rules," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1067-1088, November.
    6. Yukio Koriyama & Jean-François Laslier & Antonin Macé & Rafael Treibich, 2013. "Optimal Apportionment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(3), pages 584-608.
    7. Holmstrom, Bengt & Myerson, Roger B, 1983. "Efficient and Durable Decision Rules with Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(6), pages 1799-1819, November.
    8. Yaron Azrieli & Semin Kim, 2014. "Pareto Efficiency And Weighted Majority Rules," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55, pages 1067-1088, November.
    9. Miller, Gary J & Hammond, Thomas H, 1990. "Committees and the Core of the Constitution," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 201-227, September.
    10. Daron Acemoglu & Georgy Egorov & Konstantin Sonin, 2012. "Dynamics and Stability of Constitutions, Coalitions, and Clubs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1446-1476, June.
    11. Salvador Barbera & Matthew O. Jackson, 2006. "On the Weights of Nations: Assigning Voting Weights in a Heterogeneous Union," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(2), pages 317-339, April.
    12. Hammond, Thomas H. & Miller, Gary J., 1987. "The Core of the Constitution," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1155-1174, December.
    13. Kultti, Klaus & Miettinen, Paavo, 2007. "Stable set and voting rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 164-171, March.
    14. Azrieli, Yaron & Kim, Semin, 2016. "On the self-(in)stability of weighted majority rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 376-389.
    15. Mouw, Calvin J. & MacKuen, Michael B., 1992. "The Strategic Agenda in Legislative Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(1), pages 87-105, March.
    16. Bernheim, B. Douglas & Peleg, Bezalel & Whinston, Michael D., 1987. "Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibria I. Concepts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-12, June.
    17. repec:cup:apsrev:v:63:y:1969:i:01:p:40-56_26 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Salvador Barbera & Matthew O. Jackson, 2004. "Choosing How to Choose: Self-Stable Majority Rules and Constitutions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 1011-1048.
    19. repec:cup:apsrev:v:67:y:1973:i:03:p:934-946_14 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Gordon Tullock, 1981. "Why so much stability," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 189-204, January.
    21. Danilo Coelho, 2005. "Maximin choice of voting rules for committees," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 159-175, July.
    22. Versteeg, Mila & Zackin, Emily, 2016. "Constitutions Unentrenched: Toward an Alternative Theory of Constitutional Design," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(4), pages 657-674, November.
    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. Hermida-Rivera, Héctor, 2025. "Minimal stable voting rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 541-553.
    2. Daeyoung Jeong & Semin Kim, 2024. "On the (robust) ex post stability of constitutions," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 26(4), August.

    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. Azrieli, Yaron & Kim, Semin, 2016. "On the self-(in)stability of weighted majority rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 376-389.
    2. Hermida-Rivera, Héctor, 2025. "Minimal stable voting rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 541-553.
    3. Héctor Hermida‐Rivera & Toygar T. Kerman, 2025. "Binary Self‐Selective Voting Rules," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 27(3), June.
    4. Daeyoung Jeong & Semin Kim, 2017. "Interim Self-Stable Decision Rules," Working papers 2017rwp-108, Yonsei University, Yonsei Economics Research Institute.
    5. Satoshi Nakada & Shmuel Nitzan & Takashi Ui, 2025. "Robust Voting under Uncertainty," Papers 2507.22655, arXiv.org.
    6. Johann Caro‐Burnett, 2022. "Optimal voting rules for international organizations, with an application to the United Nations," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 24(6), pages 1463-1501, December.
    7. Kikuchi, Kazuya & Koriyama, Yukio, 2023. "The winner-take-all dilemma," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(3), July.
    8. Cheryl L. Eavey & Gary J. Miller, 1995. "Subcommittee Agenda Control," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 7(2), pages 125-156, April.
    9. Semin Kim, 2023. "On the (Robust) Ex-post Stability of Constitutions," Working papers 2023rwp-212, Yonsei University, Yonsei Economics Research Institute.
    10. Yaron Azrieli & Semin Kim, 2014. "Pareto Efficiency And Weighted Majority Rules," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1067-1088, November.
    11. Yaron Azrieli & Ritesh Jain & Semin Kim, 2025. "Anonymous voting in a heterogeneous society," Papers 2508.08055, arXiv.org.
    12. Schmitz, Patrick W. & Tröger, Thomas, 2012. "The (sub-)optimality of the majority rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 651-665.
    13. Karakas, Leyla D., 2016. "Political turnover and the accumulation of democratic capital," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 195-213.
    14. Miho Hong & Semin Kim, 2018. "Unanimity and Local Incentive Compatibility," Working papers 2018rwp-138, Yonsei University, Yonsei Economics Research Institute.
    15. Yaron Azrieli, 2018. "The price of ‘one person, one vote’," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(2), pages 353-385, February.
    16. Semin Kim, 2016. "Ordinal Versus Cardinal Voting Rules: A Mechanism Design Approach," Working papers 2016rwp-94, Yonsei University, Yonsei Economics Research Institute.
    17. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Corazzini, Luca & Passarelli, Francesco, 2017. "Voting as a lottery," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 129-137.
    18. Andrea Sáenz de Viteri Vázquez & Christian Bjørnskov, 2020. "Constitutional power concentration and corruption: evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 509-536, December.
    19. Claus Beisbart & Stephan Hartmann, 2010. "Welfarist evaluations of decision rules under interstate utility dependencies," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(2), pages 315-344, February.
    20. Grüner, Hans Peter & Engelmann, Dirk, 2013. "Tailored Bayesian Mechanisms: Experimental Evidence from Two-Stage Voting Games," CEPR Discussion Papers 9544, Centre for Economic Policy Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D02 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    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:eee:gamebe:v:142:y:2023:i:c:p:794-811. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    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.