Suchergebnisse

This paper provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a pure strategy Bertrand equilibrium in a model of price competition with fixed costs. It unveils an interesting and unexplored relationship between Bertrand competition and natural monopoly. That relationship points out that the non-subadditivity of the cost function at the output level corresponding to the oligopoly break-even price, denoted by D(pL(n)), is sufficient to guarantee that the market sustains a (not necessarily symmetric) Bertrand equilibrium in pure strategies with two or more firms supplying at least D(pL(n)). Conversely, the existence of a pure strategy equilibrium ensures that the cost function is not subadditive at every output greater than or equal to D(pL(n)).

This paper studies the strategic foundations of the Representative Voter Theorem (Rothstein, 1991), also called the second version of the Median Voter Theorem. As a by-product, it also considers the existence of non-trivial strategy-proof social choice functions over the domain of single-crossing preference profiles. The main result presented here is that single-crossing preferences constitute a domain restriction on the real line that allows not only majority voting equilibria, but also non-manipulable choice rules. In particular, this is true for the median choice rule, which is found to be strategy-proof and group-strategic-proof not only over the full set of alternatives, but also over every possible policy agenda. The paper also shows the close relation between single-crossing and order-restriction. And it uses this relation together with the strategy-proofness of the median choice rule to prove that the collective outcome predicted by the Representative Voter Theorem can be implemented in dominant strategies through a simple mechanism in which, first, individuals select a representative among themselves, and then the representative voter chooses a policy to be implemented by the planner.

AbstractDespite the empirical support for other-regarding behavior in humans, spatial voting theory has largely overlooked the role of social preferences. This work takes the perspective that individuals not only harbour selfish preferences regarding material possessions, but also experience emotions such as envy and guilt regarding the possessions of others. By exploring how these emotions, manifested as inequity aversion, shape collective decision-making, this research deviates from the predominant focus on self-interest. Instead, it delves into the influence of guilt and envy on distributive politics, proposing two sensible constraints on these emotions, called limited and chained other-regardingness. These domain conditions on social preferences are aligned with the empirical estimates of inequity aversion; and they aim to ensure the stability (non-emptiness), uniqueness, and fairness of the majority-rule core.

From a theoretical viewpoint, political budget cycles (PBC) arise in equilibrium when rational voters are imperfectly informed about the incumbent's competency and the incumbent enjoys discretionary power over the budget. This paper focuses on the second condition, examining how executive discretion is affected by the budgetary process under separation of powers. We specifically model PBC in the composition of government spending. The main result is that effective checks and balances in the budgetary process curb PBC. The institutional features of the executive-legislature bargaining game, namely, the actual agenda-setting authority, the status quo location and the degree of legislative oversight and control of the implementation of the budgetary law, play critical roles for the existence and the size of PBC. These results are consistent with recent empirical findings, which show that PBC are more pronounced in developing countries, where there are also less effective checks and balances.

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications Router ; History: received 2017-12-30, registration 2021-01-27, accepted 2021-01-27, pub-electronic 2021-03-10, online 2021-03-10, pub-print 2021-08 ; Publication status: Published ; Abstract: We analyze a political competition model of redistributive policies. We provide an equilibrium existence result and a full characterization of the net transfers to the different income groups. We also derive several testable predictions about the way in which the net group transfers and the after-tax Gini coefficient vary with the main parameters of the model. In accordance with the theory, the empirical evidence from a sample of developed and developing democracies supports a highly statistically significant association between: (i) the net group transfer and the gap between the population and the group mean initial income, and (ii) the net group transfer (and resp., the Gini coefficient) and power sharing disproportionality. In addition, the data also provide some empirical evidence confirming a significant relationship between the net transfers to the poor (and resp., the Gini) and the concern of the political parties with income inequality.

We study the effect of power sharing over income redistribution among different socio-economic groups in a model of redistributive politics with fairness concern. We prove that a unique pure-strategy equilibrium exists under fairly general conditions; and we show that equilibrium transfers depend on the interplay of four main factors: (i) the gap between the population and the group average pre-tax income; (ii) the relative ideological neutrality of the poor, (iii) parties' and voters' concern with income inequality, and (iv) the proportionality of the electoral rule. A number of comparative statics predictions emerge from our characterization. Among them, our analysis shows that the net transfers to the middle class and the rich (resp., the poor) increase (resp., decrease) with power sharing disproportionality. Further, we prove that the Gini coefficient associated with the distribution of disposable incomes also rises with the disproportionality of the power sharing rule, which amount to say that income inequality rises as policymaking power gets more concentrated in the majority winning party. We confront these predictions to the data, using an unbalanced panel of developed and developing democracies. The empirical evidence strongly supports both, the positive effect of the income gap over the group transfers, and the relationship between the Gini index (and respectively, the group transfers) and power sharing disproportionality.