Endogenous number of lobby groups in a specific factor trade model
The basic goal of this paper is to develop an endogenous trade policy model in the Grossman and Helpman (1994) tradition that could endogenise the number of lobby groups in the economy. The game has three stages. In the first stage, the consumer that owns a specific factor decides whether to organise or not in pressure groups. In the second one, the lobbies (organised groups of consumers) select the contributions (income transfers) they are willing to make to influence the government's actions. Finally, in a third stage of the game the government establishes the trade policy. This chapter highlights two main results. The first one is that contribution is a dominant strategy for each lobby group, thus the sub-game perfect equilibrium implies all the lobby groups being active (L=N). The second one is related with the welfare evaluation of this equilibrium. It is well known in the literature that this equilibrium is efficient (in a Pareto sense) but it is also important to analyse what happen when only the lobby welfare is considered. The conclusion is that being organised and defending a particular interest is better than not being organised, given that the others are not organised (or only some are), because it is possible to obtain an advantage in the political relationship with the government. On the other hand, since the other antagonic groups (one or some) are organised in lobbies, it is possible to reduce the damage from the distortions created by their influence on the government’s actions. An implication of this result is that many times in societies with a multiplicity of specific interests organised corporately, typically all finish in a worst situation than if they were not organised, arriving to a prisoner's dilemma outcome, if only the lobby’s welfare is considered.
|Date of creation:||Sep 1998|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (598) 2410-6449
Fax: (598) 2410-6450
Web page: http://www.fcs.edu.uy/subcategoria.php?SubCatId=48&CatId=53
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Dexit, A. & Grossman, G.M. & Helpman, E., 1996.
"Common Agency and Coordination: General Theory and Application to Tax Policy,"
11-96, Tel Aviv.
- Dixit, A. & Helpman, E., 1996. "Common Agency and Coordination: General Theory and Application to Tax Policy," Papers 179, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
- Dixit, Avinash K & Grossman, Gene & Helpman, Elhanan, 1996. "Common Agency and Coordination: General Theory and Application to Tax Policy," CEPR Discussion Papers 1436, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Grossman, G.M. & Helpman, E., 1992.
"Protection for Sale,"
162, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
- Grossman, Gene & Helpman, Elhanan, 1993. "Protection for Sale," CEPR Discussion Papers 827, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1992. "Protection For Sale," NBER Working Papers 4149, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Grossman, G.M. & Helpman, E., 1992. "Protection for Sale," Papers 21-92, Tel Aviv.
- Giovanni Maggi & Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, 1999.
"Protection for Sale: An Empirical Investigation,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1135-1155, December.
- Hillman, Arye L, 1982. "Declining Industries and Political-Support Protectionist Motives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 1180-87, December.
- S. Lael Brainard & Thierry Verdier, 1993.
"The Political Economy of Declining Industries: Senescent Industry Collapse Revisited,"
NBER Working Papers
4606, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Brainard, S. Lael & Verdier, Thierry, 1997. "The political economy of declining industries: Senescent industry collapse revisited," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 221-237, February.
- Tharakan, P K M, 1995. "Political Economy and Contingent Protection," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(433), pages 1550-64, November.
- Trefler, Daniel, 1993. "Trade Liberalization and the Theory of Endogenous Protection: An Econometric Study of U.S. Import Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 138-60, February.
- Bernheim, B Douglas & Whinston, Michael D, 1986. "Common Agency," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(4), pages 923-42, July.
- Dani Rodrik, 1994.
"What Does the Political Economy Literature on Trade Policy (Not) Tell UsThat We Ought To Know?,"
NBER Working Papers
4870, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Rodrik, Dani, 1994. "What does the Political Economy Literature on Trade Policy (Not) Tell Us That We Ought to Know?," CEPR Discussion Papers 1039, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Gabriel Sánchez, 1998. "Lobbying, innovation and protectionist cycles," Economics Working Papers 272, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, 1986. "Menu Auctions, Resource Allocation, and Economic Influence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 101(1), pages 1-31.
- Staiger, Robert W & Tabellini, Guido, 1987. "Discretionary Trade Policy and Excessive Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 823-37, December.
- Mayer, Wolfgang, 1984. "Endogenous Tariff Formation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 970-85, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ude:wpaper:0198. 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: (Irene Musio)or (Héctor Pastori)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.