Suchergebnisse

In countries with multiparty political systems, we assume--if the system is going to work--that parties have relatively stable positions on policy, that these positions diverge, and that voters make choices based on policy preferences. Yet much of the research on voter behavior and party competition does not support these assumptions. In Party Competition, James Adams applies the insights of behavioral research to an examination of the policy strategies that political parties (and candidates) employ in seeking election. He argues that vote-seeking parties are motivated to present policies that appeal to voters, whose bias toward these policies is based in part on reasons that have nothing to do with policy. He demonstrates that this strategic logic has profound implications for party competition and responsible party government. Adams's innovative fusion of research methodologies presents solutions to issues of policy stability and voter partisanship. His theory's supported by an in-depth analysis of empirical applications to party competition in Britain, France, and the United States in the postwar years. Party Competition and Responsible Party Government will appeal to readers interested in the study of political parties, voting behavior and elections, as well as to scholars specializing in French, British, and American politics. James Adams is Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara

Includes bibliographical references (p. 217-228) and index. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Explaining how political institutions shape human behavior is one of the big challenges of social sciences. This thesis uses game theory, behavioral economics and the tools of experimental economics to study two topics in particular: information aggregation and legitimacy of institutions. While political decisions are most accurate when based on aggregated information, individuals with heterogeneous preferences over political issues often have no incentives to share their private information sincerely. The first two chapters investigate whether individuals - instead of strategic lying - resort to telling the truth as a simple heuristic in complex collective decisions and whether the desire to show one's own expertise induces sincere communication. The last chapter studies how a political institution's legitimacy influences the extent and efficacy of third-party punishment. The evidence presented in this thesis shows that individuals differ largely in their ability to lie strategically, they are more likely to tell the truth when they can signal their expertise in a prestigious knowledge area, and sanctions of a democratically legitimized institution are milder and more effective. Relaxing the standard assumptions of full rationality and self-interested preferences, and integrating cognitive constraints and behavioral motives such as image concerns and legitimacy in economic models is thus key to understanding political behavior.

Explaining how political institutions shape human behavior is one of the big challenges of social sciences. This thesis uses game theory, behavioral economics and the tools of experimental economics to study two topics in particular: information aggregation and legitimacy of institutions. While political decisions are most accurate when based on aggregated information, individuals with heterogeneous preferences over political issues often have no incentives to share their private information sincerely. The first two chapters investigate whether individuals - instead of strategic lying - resort to telling the truth as a simple heuristic in complex collective decisions and whether the desire to show one's own expertise induces sincere communication. The last chapter studies how a political institution's legitimacy influences the extent and efficacy of third-party punishment. The evidence presented in this thesis shows that individuals differ largely in their ability to lie strategically, they are more likely to tell the truth when they can signal their expertise in a prestigious knowledge area, and sanctions of a democratically legitimized institution are milder and more effective. Relaxing the standard assumptions of full rationality and self-interested preferences, and integrating cognitive constraints and behavioral motives such as image concerns and legitimacy in economic models is thus key to understanding political behavior.

Explaining how political institutions shape human behavior is one of the big challenges of social sciences. This thesis uses game theory, behavioral economics and the tools of experimental economics to study two topics in particular: information aggregation and legitimacy of institutions. While political decisions are most accurate when based on aggregated information, individuals with heterogeneous preferences over political issues often have no incentives to share their private information sincerely. The first two chapters investigate whether individuals - instead of strategic lying - resort to telling the truth as a simple heuristic in complex collective decisions and whether the desire to show one's own expertise induces sincere communication. The last chapter studies how a political institution's legitimacy influences the extent and efficacy of third-party punishment. The evidence presented in this thesis shows that individuals differ largely in their ability to lie strategically, they are more likely to tell the truth when they can signal their expertise in a prestigious knowledge area, and sanctions of a democratically legitimized institution are milder and more effective. Relaxing the standard assumptions of full rationality and self-interested preferences, and integrating cognitive constraints and behavioral motives such as image concerns and legitimacy in economic models is thus key to understanding political behavior.

This theoretical paper contrasts two voting heuristics: overstating and replacing. Under the Alternative Vote, overstatement is inefficient but replacement is efficient. The paper argues that the "replacing" manipulation corresponds to a psychologically and politically plausible voter behavior.