IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wvu/wpaper/16-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Endogenous Competence and a Limit to the Condorcet Jury Theorem

Author

Listed:
  • Bryan McCannon

    (West Virginia University, Department of Economics)

  • Paul Walker

    (West Virginia University, Department of Economics)

Abstract

The seminal contribution, known as the Condorcet Jury Theorem, observes that under a specific set of conditions an increase in the size of a group tasked with making a decision leads to an improvement in the group's ability to make a good decision. An assumption under-appreciated is that the competency of the members of the group is assumed to be exogenous. In numerous applications, members of the group make investments to improve the accuracy of their decision making (e.g. pre-meeting efforts). We consider the collective action problem that arises. We show that if competence is endogenous, then increases in the size of the group encourages free riding. This trades off with the value of information aggregation. Thus, the value of increased group size is muted. Extensions illustrate that if committee members are allowed to exit/not participate, then the equilibrium committee size is reduced. Additionally, (non-decisive supermajority voting rules encourage the investments and, consequently, individual competence.

Suggested Citation

  • Bryan McCannon & Paul Walker, 2016. "Endogenous Competence and a Limit to the Condorcet Jury Theorem," Working Papers 16-12, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.
  • Handle: RePEc:wvu:wpaper:16-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://busecon.wvu.edu/phd_economics/pdf/16-12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben-Yashar, Ruth C & Nitzan, Shmuel I, 1997. "The Optimal Decision Rule for Fixed-Size Committees in Dichotomous Choice Situations: The General Result," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 38(1), pages 175-186, February.
    2. Bryan C. McCannon, 2015. "Condorcet jury theorems," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.),Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 9, pages 140-160, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Marselli, Riccardo & McCannon, Bryan C. & Vannini, Marco, 2015. "Bargaining in the shadow of arbitration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 356-368.
    4. Patrick Hummel, 2010. "Jury theorems with multiple alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(1), pages 65-103, January.
    5. Martinelli, Cesar, 2006. "Would rational voters acquire costly information?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 225-251, July.
    6. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135-135.
    7. Raphael Kazmann, 1973. "Democratic organization: A preliminary mathematical model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 17-26, September.
    8. Patrick Hummel, 2012. "Deliberation in large juries with diverse preferences," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 595-608, March.
    9. Cason, Timothy N. & Khan, Feisal U., 1999. "A laboratory study of voluntary public goods provision with imperfect monitoring and communication," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 533-552, April.
    10. Andreoni, James, 1995. "Cooperation in Public-Goods Experiments: Kindness or Confusion?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 891-904, September.
    11. Feddersen, Timothy J & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 1996. "The Swing Voter's Curse," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 408-424, June.
    12. Congleton, Roger D, 2001. "Rational Ignorance, Rational Voter Expectations, and Public Policy: A Discrete Informational Foundation for Fiscal Illusion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 107(1-2), pages 35-64, April.
    13. Edward Clarke, 1971. "Multipart pricing of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 17-33, September.
    14. Coughlan, Peter J., 2000. "In Defense of Unanimous Jury Verdicts: Mistrials, Communication, and Strategic Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 375-393, June.
    15. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Jacob Paroush, 2001. "Optimal decision rules for fixed-size committees in polychotomous choice situations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(4), pages 737-746.
    16. Mark Fey, 2003. "A note on the Condorcet Jury Theorem with supermajority voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 20(1), pages 27-32.
    17. Keith Dougherty & Julian Edward & Robi Ragan, 2015. "The value of formalism: re-examining external costs and decision costs with multiple groups," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 31-52, April.
    18. Berg, Sven, 1993. "Condorcet's jury theorem revisited," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 437-446, August.
    19. Li Hao & Wing Suen, 2009. "Viewpoint: Decision-making in committees," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 359-392, May.
    20. Nitzan, Shmuel & Paroush, Jacob, 1982. "Optimal Decision Rules in Uncertain Dichotomous Choice Situations," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 23(2), pages 289-297, June.
    21. Ruth Ben-Yashar, 2006. "Information is important to Condorcet jurors," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 305-319, June.
    22. Bryan C. McCannon, 2018. "Leadership and motivation for public goods contributions," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 65(1), pages 68-96, February.
    23. Austen-Smith, David & Banks, Jeffrey S., 1996. "Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(1), pages 34-45, March.
    24. Bernard Grofman, 1975. "A comment on ‘democratic theory: A preliminary mathematical model.’," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 99-103, March.
    25. Drora Karotkin & Jacob Paroush, 2003. "Optimum committee size: Quality-versus-quantity dilemma," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 20(3), pages 429-441, June.
    26. Eric Helland & Yaron Raviv, 2008. "The optimal jury size when jury deliberation follows a random walk," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 134(3), pages 255-262, March.
    27. Bryan C. McCannon, 2011. "Jury Size in Classical Athens: an Application of the Condorcet Jury Theorem," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(1), pages 106-121, February.
    28. Roger Congleton, 2007. "Informational limits to democratic public policy: The jury theorem, yardstick competition, and ignorance," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 333-352, September.
    29. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Mor Zahavi, 2011. "The Condorcet jury theorem and extension of the franchise with rationally ignorant voters," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 435-443, September.
    30. Keith Dougherty & Julian Edward, 2012. "Voting for Pareto optimality: a multidimensional analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 655-678, June.
    31. Shmuel Nitzan & Jacob Paroush, 1984. "Are qualified majority rules special?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 257-272, January.
    32. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Winston Koh & Shmuel Nitzan, 2012. "Is specialization desirable in committee decision making?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(3), pages 341-357, March.
    33. Tullock, Gordon, 1971. "Public Decisions as Public Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(4), pages 913-918, July-Aug..
    34. Groves, Theodore, 1973. "Incentives in Teams," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 617-631, July.
    35. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan, 2001. "The invalidity of the Condorcet Jury Theorem under endogenous decisional skills," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 243-249, November.
    36. Keith L. Dougherty, 2015. "Supermajority rules," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.),Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 7, pages 102-116, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guha Brishti, 2020. "Pretrial Beliefs and Verdict Accuracy: Costly Juror Effort and Free Riding," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 20(2), pages 1-9, June.
    2. Aimone, Jason A. & North, Charles & Rentschler, Lucas, 2019. "Priming the jury by asking for Donations: An empirical and experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 158-167.
    3. Bryan C. McCannon, 2018. "Arbitration in classical Athens," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 413-423, December.
    4. Guha, Brishti, 2018. "Secret ballots and costly information gathering: The jury size problem revisited," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 58-67.
    5. Darren Grant, 2017. "The ballot order effect is huge: evidence from Texas," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(3), pages 421-442, September.
    6. Bryan C. McCannon & Joylynn Pruitt, 2018. "Taking on the boss: Informative contests in prosecutor elections," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(5), pages 657-671, October.
    7. Guha, Brishti, 2017. "Should Jurors Deliberate?," MPRA Paper 79876, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Alexander Lundberg, 2020. "The importance of expertise in group decisions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(3), pages 495-521, October.
    9. Guha Brishti, 2020. "Should Jurors Deliberate?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 1-27, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    committee decision making; Condorcet Jury Theorem; endogenous competence; group size; majority voting; supermajority voting;

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D02 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    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:wvu:wpaper:16-12. 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: (Josh Hall). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dewvuus.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.