Endogenous Institutions in Bureaucratic Compliance Games
We consider a set-up where two governments have either conflicting or matching preferences on the provision of differentiated (local) goods supplied by a common monopoly bureau. We develop a two-stage game. At stage-1, the two governments decide whether or not to merge into a single institution. At stage-2, all players simultaneously and independently take their decisions in terms of production and rents, with perfect knowledge of the other players' strategies. We solve the subgame perfect Nash equilibrium of this game, and show that, if the bureau immediately updatesits objective function to institutional changes, then the governments always prefer merging. However, if there is an initial bureaucratic inertia in adjusting the bureau's objective function to the institutional change, then ruling politicians may prefer decentralisation to centralisation, depending on the strategic properties of the compliance game and on their own discounting.
|Date of creation:||01 Jan 2000|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Via Conservatorio 7, I-20122 Milan - Italy|
Phone: +39 02 50321522
Fax: +39 02 50321505
Web page: http://www.demm.unimi.it
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Henrick Horn & Asher Wolinsky, 1988.
"Bilateral Monopolies and Incentives for Merger,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(3), pages 408-419, Autumn.
- Chan, Kenneth S. & Mestelman, Stuart, 1988. "Institutions, efficiency and the strategic behaviour of sponsors and bureaus," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 91-102, October.
- Breton, Albert & Wintrobe, Ronald, 1975. "The Equilibrium Size of a Budget-maximizing Bureau: A Note on Niskanen's Theory of Bureaucracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(1), pages 195-207, February.
- Niskanen, William A, 1975. "Bureaucrats and Politicians," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 617-643, December.
- Horn, Henrik & Wolinsky, Asher, 1988. "Worker Substitutability and Patterns of Unionisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 98(391), pages 484-497, June.
- Daems, A.J., 1990. "Budgeting the non-profit organization : An agency theoretic approach," Research Memorandum 6377191a-f918-4f1e-a71a-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- Carlsen, Fredrik & Haugen, Kjetil, 1994. "Markov Perfect Equilibrium in Multi-period Games between Sponsor and Bureau," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 79(3-4), pages 257-280, June.
- Barbara Spencer, 1979. "Outside Information and the Degree of Monopoly Power of a Public Bureau," Working Papers 361, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1994. "Politicians and Firms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 109(4), pages 995-1025.
- Moene, Karl O., 1986. "Types of bureaucratic interaction," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 333-345, April.
- Malcomson, James M., 1986. "Some analytics of the laffer curve," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 263-279, April.
- Tim Besley & Stephen Coate, "undated".
"An Economic Model of Representative Democracy,"
Penn CARESS Working Papers
ecf70d639d700dba5327ab0c8, Penn Economics Department.
- Fedeli, Silvia, 1999. "Competing Bureaus and Politicians: A Compliance Approach to the Diversion of Public Funds," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 100(3-4), pages 253-270, September.
- Buchanan, James M & Lee, Dwight R, 1982. "Politics, Time, and the Laffer Curve," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(4), pages 816-819, August.
- Bernheim, B Douglas & Whinston, Michael D, 1986. "Common Agency," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(4), pages 923-942, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mil:wpdepa:2000-03. 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: (DEMM Working Papers)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.