IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2512.22051.html

Centralization and Stability in Formal Constitutions

Author

Listed:
  • Yotam Gafni

Abstract

Consider a social-choice function (SCF) is chosen to decide votes in a formal system, including votes to replace the voting method itself. Agents vote according to their ex-ante preference between the incumbent SCF and the suggested replacement. The existing SCF then aggregates the agents' votes and arrives at a decision of whether it should itself be replaced. An SCF is self-maintaining if it can not be replaced in such fashion by any other SCF. Our focus is on the implications of self-maintenance for centralization. We present results considering optimistic, pessimistic and i.i.d. approaches w.r.t. agent beliefs, and different tie-breaking rules. To highlight two of the results, (i) for the i.i.d. unbiased case with arbitrary tie-breaking, we prove an ``Arrow-Style'' Theorem for Dynamics: We show that only a dictatorship is self-maintaining, and any other SCF has a path of changes that arrives at a dictatorship. (ii) If we take into account wisdom of the crowd effects, for a society with a variable size of ruling elite, we demonstrate how the stable elite size is decreasing in both how extractive the economy is, and the quality of individual decision-making. All in all we provide a basic framework and body of results for centralization dynamics and stability, applicable for institution design, especially in formal ``De-Jure'' systems, such as Blockchain Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs).

Suggested Citation

  • Yotam Gafni, 2025. "Centralization and Stability in Formal Constitutions," Papers 2512.22051, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2512.22051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.22051
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barbereau, Tom & Smethurst, Reilly & Papageorgiou, Orestis & Sedlmeir, Johannes & Fridgen, Gilbert, 2023. "Decentralised Finance’s timocratic governance: The distribution and exercise of tokenised voting rights," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Itay Goldstein & Deeksha Gupta & Ruslan Sverchkov, 2024. "Utility Tokens as a Commitment to Competition," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 79(6), pages 4197-4246, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris, 2012. "Robust Mechanism Design," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robust Mechanism Design The Role of Private Information and Higher Order Beliefs, chapter 2, pages 49-96, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Stefano Balietti & Pietro Saggese & Stefan Kitzler & Bernhard Haslhofer, 2025. "Slaying the Dragon: The Quest for Democracy in Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)," Papers 2511.09263, arXiv.org.
    7. Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson, 2001. "A Theory of Political Transitions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 938-963, September.
    8. Michael Sockin & Wei Xiong, 2023. "Decentralization through Tokenization," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 78(1), pages 247-299, February.
    9. Semih Koray, 2000. "Self-Selective Social Choice Functions Verify Arrow and Gibbarad- Satterthwaite Theorems," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 981-996, July.
    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. Chambers, Christopher P., 2008. "Consistent representative democracy," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 348-363, March.
    2. Grüner, Hans Peter & Engelmann, Dirk, 2013. "Tailored Bayesian Mechanisms: Experimental Evidence from Two-Stage Voting Games," CEPR Discussion Papers 9544, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. 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.
    4. Lagunoff, Roger, 2009. "Dynamic stability and reform of political institutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 569-583, November.
    5. Thakur, Ashutosh & Bendor, Jonathan, 2024. "Endogenous reorganization: Status, productivity & meritocratic dynamics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    6. Mostapha Diss, 2015. "Strategic manipulability of self-selective social choice rules," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 229(1), pages 347-376, June.
    7. Jermann, Urban & Xiang, Haotian, 2025. "Tokenomics: Optimal monetary and fee policies," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    8. Yıldız, Kemal, 2025. "Nash bargaining is implementable via two-stage rights structures," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    9. Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2009. "Constitutional Design and Political Communication," MPRA Paper 18490, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Takahiro Suzuki & Masahide Horita, 2023. "A Society Can Always Decide How to Decide: A Proof," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 987-1023, October.
    11. Bernardo Guimaraes & Kevin D. Sheedy, 2017. "Guarding the Guardians," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(606), pages 2441-2477, November.
    12. Roger Lagunoff, 2005. "Markov Equilibrium in Models of Dynamic Endogenous Political Institutions," Game Theory and Information 0501003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Kultti, Klaus & Miettinen, Paavo, 2007. "Stable set and voting rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 164-171, March.
    14. Barberà, Salvador & Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2022. "Restricted environments and incentive compatibility in interdependent values models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 1-28.
    15. Moritz Drexl & Andreas Kleiner, 2018. "Why Voting? A Welfare Analysis," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 253-271, August.
    16. H'ector Hermida-Rivera, 2025. "Self-Equivalent Voting Rules," Papers 2506.15310, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2025.
    17. 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.
    18. Daeyoung Jeong & Semin Kim, 2017. "Interim Self-Stable Decision Rules," Working papers 2017rwp-108, Yonsei University, Yonsei Economics Research Institute.
    19. Barseghyan, Levon & Guerdjikova, Ani, 2011. "Institutions and growth in limited access societies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 528-568, March.
    20. Schmitz, Patrick W. & Tröger, Thomas, 2012. "The (sub-)optimality of the majority rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 651-665.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2512.22051. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.