IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jforec/v34y2015i5p391-404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forecasting the Outcome of Closed‐Door Decisions: Evidence from 500 Years of Betting on Papal Conclaves

Author

Listed:
  • Leighton Vaughan Williams
  • David Paton

Abstract

Closed‐door decisions may be defined as decisions in which the outcome is determined by a limited number of decision‐makers and where the process is shrouded in at least some secrecy. In this paper, we examine the use of betting markets to forecast one particular closed‐door decision: the election of the pope. Within the context of 500 years of papal election betting, we employ a unique dataset of betting on the 2013 papal election to investigate how new public information is incorporated into the betting odds. Our results suggest that the market was generally unable to incorporate effectively such information. We venture some possible explanations for our findings and offer suggestions for further research into the prediction and predictability of other ‘closed‐door’ decisions. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Leighton Vaughan Williams & David Paton, 2015. "Forecasting the Outcome of Closed‐Door Decisions: Evidence from 500 Years of Betting on Papal Conclaves," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(5), pages 391-404, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jforec:v:34:y:2015:i:5:p:391-404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maxime Menuet, 2017. "Consensus-building in Electoral Competitions: Evidence from Papal Elections," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(4), pages 2826-2834.

    More about this item

    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:wly:jforec:v:34:y:2015:i:5:p:391-404. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/2966 .

    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.