IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wrk/wqapec/29.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," QAPEC Discussion Papers 29, Quantitative and Analytical Political Economy Research Centre.
    • Handle: RePEc:wrk:wqapec:29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/qapec/discussionpapers/manage/29_-_qapec_squintani.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Ming & Madarász, Kristóf, 2008. "When mandatory disclosure hurts: Expert advice and conflicting interests," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 47-74, March.
    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.
    4. Ottaviani, Marco & Sorensen, Peter, 2001. "Information aggregation in debate: who should speak first?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 393-421, September.
    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. Alp Atakan & Levent Kockesen & Elif Kubilay, 2017. "Optimal Delegation of Sequential Decisions: The Role of Communication and Reputation," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 1701, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.
    3. Atakan, Alp & Koçkesen, Levent & Kubilay, Elif, 2020. "Starting small to communicate," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 265-296.
    4. Li Ming, 2010. "Advice from Multiple Experts: A Comparison of Simultaneous, Sequential, and Hierarchical Communication," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-24, April.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Mezzetti, Claudio, 2020. "Manipulative Disclosure," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1250, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    8. Szalay, Dezső & Deimen, Inga, 2015. "Information, authority, and smooth communication in organizations," CEPR Discussion Papers 10969, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Deimen, Inga & Szalay, Dezsö, 2014. "A Smooth, strategic communication," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 479, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    12. Kim, Kyungmin & Pogach, Jonathan, 2014. "Honesty vs. advocacy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 51-74.
    13. Travis Dyer & Eunjee Kim, 2021. "Anonymous Equity Research," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 59(2), pages 575-611, May.
    14. Wonsuk Chung & Rick Harbaugh, 2012. "Biased Recommendations," Working Papers 2012-02, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    15. Ole Jann & Christoph Schottmuller, 2018. "Why Echo Chambers are Useful," Economics Series Working Papers 857, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    16. Archishman Chakraborty & Rick Harbaugh, 2010. "Persuasion by Cheap Talk," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2361-2382, December.
      • Archishman Chakraborty & Rick Harbaugh, 2006. "Persuasion by Cheap Talk," Working Papers 2006-10, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy, revised Oct 2009.
    17. Rush Anthony & Smirnov Vladimir & Wait Andrew, 2010. "Communication Breakdown: Consultation or Delegation from an Expert with Uncertain Bias," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-29, August.
    18. Sylvain Bourjade & Bruno Jullien, 2011. "The roles of reputation and transparency on the behavior of biased experts," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 575-594, September.
    19. Schottmüller, Christoph, 2019. "Why Echo Chambers are Useful," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203517, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    20. Murali Agastya & Parimal Kanti Bag & Indranil Chakraborty, 2014. "Communication and authority with a partially informed expert," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 176-197, 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:wqapec:29. 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.