IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v34y2022i4p552-588.html

The evolution of consensus through coordinated action

Author

Listed:
  • Ishan Joshi

Abstract

Little is known about how the scope for deliberation can be compared across different branches of government. Two things need to happen for a consensus to emerge in a particular setting. Crucially, parties must coordinate to facilitate such provisions in the first place. Second, the quality of this coordination must be able to override the other biases of the environment in the long run. A parsimonious framework presents the necessary and sufficient conditions for both of these to happen across different settings—legislatures, bureaucracies, and judiciaries. Complicating matters are intra-group factions that have heterogeneous preferences. Interestingly, even if we assume factions that do not want to compromise outnumber those that do, it is the former that take the lead in solving the coordination problem in equilibrium. A related finding suggested by these comparisons is that as institutional environments become more complex—and move away from purely representative functions—the scope for generating this consensus is enhanced.

Suggested Citation

  • Ishan Joshi, 2022. "The evolution of consensus through coordinated action," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(4), pages 552-588, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:34:y:2022:i:4:p:552-588
    DOI: 10.1177/09516298221108346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09516298221108346
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09516298221108346?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. André Bächtiger & Dominik Hangartner, 2010. "When Deliberative Theory Meets Empirical Political Science: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Political Deliberation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58, pages 609-629, October.
    2. John W. Patty, 2008. "Equilibrium Party Government," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 636-655, July.
    3. Rauch, James E. & Evans, Peter B., 2000. "Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 49-71, January.
    4. de Mesquita, Ethan Bueno & Stephenson, Matthew, 2002. "Informative Precedent and Intrajudicial Communication," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(4), pages 755-766, December.
    5. Perote-Peña, Juan & Piggins, Ashley, 2015. "A Model Of Deliberative And Aggregative Democracy," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 93-121, March.
    6. Dickson, Eric S. & Hafer, Catherine & Landa, Dimitri, 2015. "Learning from Debate: Institutions and Information," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 449-472, September.
    7. Weingast, Barry R & Marshall, William J, 1988. "The Industrial Organization of Congress; or, Why Legislatures, Like Firms, Are Not Organized as Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(1), pages 132-163, February.
    8. Carolyn M. Hendriks & John S. Dryzek & Christian Hunold, 2007. "Turning Up the Heat: Partisanship in Deliberative Innovation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 362-383, June.
    9. Rasmusen, Eric, 1994. "Judicial Legitimacy as a Repeated Game," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 63-83, April.
    10. Meirowitz, Adam, 2006. "Designing Institutions to Aggregate Preferences and Information," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 1(4), pages 373-392, October.
    11. Young, H Peyton, 1993. "The Evolution of Conventions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(1), pages 57-84, January.
    12. Carolyn M. Hendriks & John S. Dryzek & Christian Hunold, 2007. "Turning Up the Heat: Partisanship in Deliberative Innovation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(2), pages 362-383, June.
    13. André Bächtiger & Dominik Hangartner, 2010. "When Deliberative Theory Meets Empirical Political Science: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Political Deliberation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 609-629, October.
    14. Miceli, Thomas J. & Cosgel, Metin M., 1994. "Reputation and judicial decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 31-51, January.
    15. Boyer, Robert & Orlean, Andre, 1992. "How Do Conventions Evolve?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 165-177, October.
    16. Austen-Smith, David & Feddersen, Timothy J., 2006. "Deliberation, Preference Uncertainty, and Voting Rules," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(2), pages 209-217, May.
    17. Dimitri Landa & Adam Meirowitz, 2009. "Game Theory, Information, and Deliberative Democracy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 427-444, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ding, Huihui & Pivato, Marcus, 2021. "Deliberation and epistemic democracy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 138-167.
    2. Franz Dietrich & Kai Spiekermann, 2025. "Deliberation and the wisdom of crowds," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 79(2), pages 603-655, March.
    3. Ying Chen & Hülya Eraslan, 2020. "Learning while setting precedents," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(4), pages 1222-1252, December.
    4. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    5. Sarah A. V. Ellington & Benjamin E. Bagozzi & Daniel Berliner & Brian Palmer-Rubin & Aaron Erlich, 2022. "Measuring Human Rights Abuse from Access to Information Requests," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(2), pages 357-384, February.
    6. Chen, Ying & Eraslan, Hulya, 2018. "Learning While Setting Precedents," Working Papers 18-001, Rice University, Department of Economics.
    7. Patrick Hummel, 2012. "Deliberation in large juries with diverse preferences," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 595-608, March.
    8. Chris Skelcher & Jacob Torfing, 2010. "Improving democratic governance through institutional design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 71-91, March.
    9. Manuel Fischer & Philip Leifeld, 2015. "Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 363-382, September.
    10. Andrew F Smith, 2014. "Political deliberation and the challenge of bounded rationality," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 13(3), pages 269-291, August.
    11. Gilat Levy, 2005. "Careerist Judges," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(2), pages 275-297, Summer.
    12. Kolstad, Ivar, 2007. "The evolution of social norms: With managerial implications," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 58-72, February.
    13. Adam B. Badawi & Scott Baker, 2015. "Appellate Lawmaking in a Judicial Hierarchy," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(1), pages 139-172.
    14. Federico Ast, 2019. "The Deliberative Test, a New Procedural Method for Ethical Decision Making in Integrative Social Contracts Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 207-221, March.
    15. Aldashev, Gani & Chaara, Imane & Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Wahhaj, Zaki, 2012. "Using the law to change the custom," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 182-200.
    16. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "The origins of social institutions," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 215-240, April.
    17. Jacob K. Goeree & Leeat Yariv, 2009. "An experimental study of jury deliberation," IEW - Working Papers 438, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    18. Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl & Dann, Christopher & Chapman, Jacob, 2022. "The accountability gap: deliberation on monetary policy in Britain and America during the financial crisis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114364, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Goyal, Sanjeev & Janssen, Maarten C. W., 1997. "Non-Exclusive Conventions and Social Coordination," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 34-57, November.
    20. Christmann Robin, 2015. "Tipping the Scales – Settlement, Appeal and the Relevance of Judicial Ambition," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 171-207, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:jothpo:v:34:y:2022:i:4:p:552-588. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.