Rhetoric in legislative bargaining with asymmetric information
We analyze a three-player legislative bargaining game over an ideological and a distributive decision. Legislators are privately informed about their ideological intensities, i.e., the weight placed on the ideological decision relative to the weight placed on the distributive decision. Communication takes place before a proposal is offered and majority rule voting determines the outcome. We show that it is not possible for all legislators to communicate informatively. In particular, the legislator who is ideologically more distant from the proposer cannot communicate informatively, but the closer legislator may communicate whether he would ``compromise" or ``fight" on ideology. Surprisingly, the proposer may be worse off when bargaining with two legislators (under majority rule) than with one (who has veto power), because competition between the legislators may result in less information conveyed in equilibrium. Despite separable preferences, the proposer is always better off making proposals for the two dimensions together.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Diermeier, Daniel & Merlo, Antonio, 1998.
"Government turnover in parliamentary democracies,"
7453, University of Minnesota, Economic Development Center.
- Diermeier, Daniel & Merlo, Antonio, 1998. "Government Turnover in Parliamentary Democracies," Working Papers 98-31, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Daniel Diermeier & Antonio Merlo, 1998. "Government Turnover in Parliamentary Democracies," Discussion Papers 1232, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Robert Gibbons & Joseph Farrell, 1988.
"Cheap Talk Can Matter in Bargaining,"
482, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Joseph Farrell and Robert Gibbons., 1988. "Cheap Talk Can Matter in Bargaining," Economics Working Papers 8863, University of California at Berkeley.
- Farrell, Joseph & Gibbons, Robert, 1988. "Cheap Talk Can Matter in Bargaining," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt3qz786xq, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Austen-Smith David, 1993. "Interested Experts and Policy Advice: Multiple Referrals under Open Rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 3-43, January.
- Tsung-Sheng Tsai & C. Yang, 2010. "Minimum winning versus oversized coalitions in public finance: the role of uncertainty," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 345-361, February.
- Crawford, Vincent P & Sobel, Joel, 1982.
"Strategic Information Transmission,"
Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1431-51, November.
- Steven A. Matthews & Andrew Postlewaite, 1987.
"Pre-Play Communication in Two-Person Sealed-Bid Double Auctions,"
744R, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Matthews, Steven A. & Postlewaite, Andrew, 1989. "Pre-play communication in two-person sealed-bid double auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 238-263, June.
- Maria Montero & Juan Vidal-Puga, 2005. "Demand commitment in legislative bargaining," Game Theory and Information 0511005, EconWPA.
- Marco Battaglini, 2002.
"Multiple Referrals and Multidimensional Cheap Talk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 70(4), pages 1379-1401, July.
- Marco Battaglini, 2000. "Multiple Referrals and Multidimensional Cheap Talk," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1557, Econometric Society.
- Marco Battaglini, 1999. "Multiple Referrals and Multidimensional Cheap Talk," Discussion Papers 1295, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Jackson, Matthew O. & Moselle, Boaz, 2002.
"Coalition and Party Formation in a Legislative Voting Game,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 49-87, March.
- Jackson, Matthew O. & Moselle, Boaz, 1998. "Coalition and Party Formation in a Legislative Voting Game," Working Papers 1036, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Matthews, Steven A, 1989. "Veto Threats: Rhetoric in a Bargaining Game," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 104(2), pages 347-69, May.
- Tsung‐Sheng Tsai & C. C. Yang, 2010. "On Majoritarian Bargaining With Incomplete Information," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 51(4), pages 959-979, November.
- Juan J. Vidal-Puga, 2004.
"Bargaining with commitments,"
International Journal of Game Theory,
Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 129-144, January.
- Tsai, Tsung-Sheng, 2009. "The evaluation of majority rules in a legislative bargaining model," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 674-684, December.
- Yves Breitmoser, 2009. "Demand commitments in majority bargaining or how formateurs get their way," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 183-191, June.
- Bagnoli, M. & Bergstrom, T., 1989.
"Log-Concave Probability And Its Applications,"
89-23, Michigan - Center for Research on Economic & Social Theory.
- Ambrus, Attila & Takahashi, Satoru, 2008.
"Multi-sender cheap talk with restricted state spaces,"
Econometric Society, vol. 3(1), March.
- Takahashi, Satoru & Ambrus, Attila, 2008. "Multi-Sender Cheap Talk with Restricted State Spaces," Scholarly Articles 3200263, Harvard University Department of Economics.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:the:publsh:821. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Martin J. Osborne)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.