 The evaluation of majority rules in a legislative bargaining modelJournal of Comparative Economics, 2009, vol. 37, issue 4, 674-684 Abstract: A budget needs to be distributed among jurisdictions through bargaining in the legislature. Using a simple three-player, three-period Baron and Ferejohn [Baron, D.P., Ferejohn, J.A., 1989. Bargaining in legislatures. American Political Science Review 83 (4), 1181-1206] style legislative bargaining model with incomplete information, we evaluate two kinds of majority rules: the simple majority rule and the unanimity rule. Under the simple majority rule, it is less expensive to form a minimum-winning coalition, so that every type of proposer prefers his proposal to be passed immediately. The proposer has fewer incentives to reveal his information by delaying the bargaining, since there is a possibility of being excluded from the majority in future periods. Thus, in contrast to the unanimity rule, there does not exist any fully separating equilibrium. We also show that if the first-period proposer has greater agenda-setting power, it can help to reduce the probability of delay. Keywords: C78; D72; P51; Majority; rules; Legislative; bargaining; Seniority; system (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jcecon:v:37:y:2009:i:4:p:674-684 Access Statistics for this article Journal of Comparative Economics is currently edited by D. Berkowitz and G. Roland More articles in Journal of Comparative Economics from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.