Risky Political Changes: Rational Choice vs Prospect Theory
This paper describes policy alternatives as lotteries, and studies how policy preferences are distorted by the cognitive anomalies postulated by Prospect Theory. Loss aversion induces a status quo bias. However, due to the reflection effect, the bias is asymmetric: too moderate attitudes toward a good reform or a good candidate, and too low severity toward bad politics. The reflection effect also determines low loyalty in partisan voting and weak concerns about partisan issues. Preferences about nonpartisan issues are independent of wealth because people use the status quo as a reference point. Ambitious platforms have more chances to pass than incremental and detailed changes because people are risk seeking in the realm of losses. In general, according to Prospect Theory the policy conflict within the society is smoother than under full rationality. Moreover, a pure majority system yields either prolonged conservatism or a radical abandonment of the status quo.
|Date of creation:||Nov 2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: via Sarfatti, 25 - 20136 Milano - Italy|
Web page: http://www.isla.unibocconi.it/
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.:
- Giuseppe Attanasi, Luca Corazzini, Francesco Passarelli, 2007.
"Voting as a Lottery,"
ISLA Working Papers
28, ISLA, Centre for research on Latin American Studies and Transition Economies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
- Attanasi, Giuseppe & Corazzini, Luca & Passarelli, Francesco, 2010. "Voting as a Lottery," TSE Working Papers 09-116, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Nov 2010.
- Giuseppe Attanasi & Luca CORAZZINI & Francesco PASSARELLI, 2009. "Voting as a Lottery," LERNA Working Papers 09.27.303, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
- Galasso, Vincenzo, 2010.
"The Role of Political Partisanship during Economic Crises,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
7834, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Vincenzo Galasso, 2014. "The role of political partisanship during economic crises," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 143-165, January.
- Maxim Boycko & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1993.
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,
Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 24(2), pages 139-192.
- Andrew Gelman & Lane Kenworthy & Yu-Sung Su, 2010. "Income Inequality and Partisan Voting in the United States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(s1), pages 1203-1219.
- Gans, Joshua S. & Smart, Michael, 1996. "Majority voting with single-crossing preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 219-237, February.
- Richard Zeckhauser, 1969. "Majority Rule with Lotteries on Alternatives," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 83(4), pages 696-703.
- Sanjay Jain & Sharun W. Mukand, 2003. "Redistributive Promises and the Adoption of Economic Reform," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 256-264, March.
- Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135.
- Sanjay Jain & Sharun W. Mukand, 2004.
"Public Opinion and the Dynamics of Reform,"
Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University
0408, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:slp:islawp:islawp39. 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: (Stefano Riela)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.