Experiments in Majoritarian Bargaining

Daniel Diermeier () and Rebecca Morton
Additional contact information
Daniel Diermeier: Northwestern University

A chapter in Social Choice and Strategic Decisions, 2005, pp 201-226 from Springer

Abstract: Summary We investigate the predictive success of the Baron-Ferejohn model of legislative bargaining in laboratory environments. In particular, we use a finite period version of the bargaining game under weighted majority rule where a fixed payoff is divided between three players. We find that our subjects’ behavior is not predicted well by the Baron-Ferejohn model. The model predicts hardly better than a coin flip which coalition partner is selected by the chosen proposer, and proposers allocate more money to other players than predicted. A sizable number of proposals are rejected in the first proposal periods, and subjects who vote to reject a proposal on average receive a higher payoff from the new proposal. We find that a simple equal sharing rule yields point predictions that can account for 2/1 to 4/3 of all accepted proposals.

Keywords: Nash Equilibrium; Vote Share; Grand Coalition; Ultimatum Game; Bargaining Game (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (48)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:stcchp:978-3-540-27295-3_8

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/9783540272953

DOI: 10.1007/3-540-27295-X_8

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Studies in Choice and Welfare from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().