IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wrk/warwec/1582.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Choice of Political Advisors

Author

Listed:
  • Migrow, Dimitri

    (University of Edinburgh)

  • Park, Hyungmin

    (University of Warwick)

  • Squintani, Francesco

    (University of Warwick)

Abstract

We study a leader’s choice of advisors, balancing political alignment, informational competence, and diversity of views. The leader can consult one or two advisors : one is politically aligned but less informed or shares potentially redundant information; the other is better informed but more biased. The leader’s optimal strategy can exhibit reversals. If both advisors are initially consulted, increasing the bias of the more biased advisor may cause the leader to exclude the aligned advisor to preserve truthfulness from the informed one. As bias rises further, the leader ultimately replaces the informed advisor if his bias becomes too large. When the leader is uncertain about the bias of the more informed advisor, increasing the chance of alignment can justify consulting both advisors.

Suggested Citation

  • Migrow, Dimitri & Park, Hyungmin & Squintani, Francesco, 2025. "The Choice of Political Advisors," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1582, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:wrk:warwec:1582
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/workingpapers/2025/twerp_1582-_squintani.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Torun Dewan & David P Myatt, 2012. "On the rhetorical strategies of leaders: Speaking clearly, standing back, and stepping down," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 431-460, October.
    2. Putnam, Robert D., 1973. "The Political Attitudes of Senior Civil Servants in Western Europe: a Preliminary Report," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 257-290, July.
    3. Morgan, John & Stocken, Phillip C, 2003. "An Analysis of Stock Recommendations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(1), pages 183-203, Spring.
    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. Park, Hyungmin & Squintani, Francesco, 2024. "The Choice of Political Advisors," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1507, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    2. Migrow, Dimitri & Park, Hyungmin & Squintani, Francesco, 2025. "The Choice of Political Advisors," QAPEC Discussion Papers 29, Quantitative and Analytical Political Economy Research Centre.
    3. Lai, Ernest K., 2014. "Expert advice for amateurs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 1-16.
    4. Phillip C. Stocken, 2022. "Disclosure regulation and incentive uncertainty," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2267-2281, June.
    5. Nicolas Klein & Tymofiy Mylovanov, 2011. "Should the Flatterers be Avoided?," 2011 Meeting Papers 1273, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    6. Jindapon, Paan & Oyarzun, Carlos, 2013. "Persuasive communication when the sender's incentives are uncertain," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 111-125.
    7. Joanna Franaszek, 2021. "When Competence Hurts: Revelation of Complex Information," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 3, pages 5-23.
    8. Adrian de Groot Ruiz & Theo Offerman & Sander Onderstal, 2011. "An Experimental Study of Credible Deviations and ACDC," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-153/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    9. Blume, Andreas, 2018. "Failure of common knowledge of language in common-interest communication games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 132-155.
    10. de Groot Ruiz, Adrian & Offerman, Theo & Onderstal, Sander, 2015. "Equilibrium selection in experimental cheap talk games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 14-25.
    11. Johanna Hertel & John Smith, 2013. "Not so cheap talk: costly and discrete communication," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 267-291, August.
    12. Boris Knapp, 2021. "Fake Reviews and Naive Consumers," Vienna Economics Papers 2102, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    13. Malmendier, Ulrike M. & Shanthikumar, Devin, 2004. "Are Investors Naive about Incentives?," Research Papers 1867, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    14. Mezzetti, Claudio, 2020. "Manipulative Disclosure," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1250, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    15. Szalay, Dezső & Deimen, Inga, 2015. "Information, authority, and smooth communication in organizations," CEPR Discussion Papers 10969, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Kovác, Eugen & Mylovanov, Tymofiy, 2009. "Stochastic mechanisms in settings without monetary transfers: The regular case," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1373-1395, July.
    17. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3370 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Ying Yi Tsai & Li-Gang Liu, 2010. "Emergence of Rating Agencies: Implications for Establishing a Regional Rating Agency in Asia," Working Papers id:2927, eSocialSciences.
    19. Emna Trabelsi, 2024. "Welfare fragmented information effects: The cost-benefit analysis and Trade-offs," Journal of Information Economics, Anser Press, vol. 2(1), pages 1-32, March.
    20. Renato Camodeca & Alex Almici & Umberto Sagliaschi, 2018. "Sustainability Disclosure in Integrated Reporting: Does It Matter to Investors? A Cheap Talk Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-34, November.
    21. Jehiel, Philippe & Koessler, Frédéric, 2008. "Revisiting games of incomplete information with analogy-based expectations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 533-557, March.

    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:wrk:warwec:1582. 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: Margaret Nash (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dewaruk.html .

    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.