Proto-coalition bargaining and the core

Breitmoser, Yves (2010): Proto-coalition bargaining and the core.

Abstract

In the proto-coalition model of government formation, formateur F appoints a proto-coalition and asks its members whether to start negotiating a coalition contract. If all accept, then the proto-coalition forms and starts negotiating; otherwise a caretaker government assumes office. I extend this model by allowing F to revise the chosen proto-coalition after rejections, that he states pre-conditions for the subsequent negotiations, and that F's opponents may publicly pre-commit to accept/reject certain proposals. The set of equilibrium outcomes is identified as the core if F's opponents can pre-commit and as the convex hull of the core if they cannot pre-commit credibly. This extended model eliminates two flaws of the standard model: it explains why F cannot always install his favored coalition (whatever the status quo) and why "important" coalition members may have more bargaining power in the subsequent negotiations than others.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: coalition formation, non-cooperative bargaining, core
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C78 - Bargaining Theory ; Matching Theory; D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D72 - Political Processes: Rent-Seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C72 - Noncooperative Games

References

Austen-Smith, D. (2000). Redistributing income under proportional representation. Journal of Political Economy, 108(6):1235–1269.

Banks, J. and Duggan, J. (2006). A general bargaining model of legislative policy-making. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1:49–85.

Baron, D. and Diermeier, D. (2001). Elections, governments, and parliaments in proportional representation systems. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(3):933–967.

Baron, D. and Ferejohn, J. (1989). Bargaining in legislatures. The American Political Science Review, 83(4):1181–1206.

Breitmoser, Y., Tan, J., and Zizzo, D. (2010). Understanding perpetual r&d races. Economic Theory, 44(3):445–467.

Cardona-Coll, D. and Mancera, F. M. (2000). Demand bargaining in legislatures. Economic Theory, 16(1):163–180.

Diermeier, D. (2006). Coalition government. Oxford handbook of political economy, pages 162–179.

Diermeier, D., Eraslan, H., and Merlo, A. (2002). Coalition governments and comparative constitutional design. European Economic Review, 46(4-5):893–907.

Diermeier, D., Eraslan, H., and Merlo, A. (2003). A structural model of government formation. Econometrica, 71(1):27–70.

Diermeier, D., Eraslan, H., and Merlo, A. (2007). Bicameralism and government formation. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2:227–252.

Diermeier, D. and Merlo, A. (2000). Government turnover in parliamentary democracies. Journal of Economic Theory, 94(1):46–79.

Eraslan, H. (2002). Uniqueness of stationary equilibrium payoffs in the Baron–Ferejohn model. Journal of Economic Theory, 103(1):11–30.

Jackson, M. and Moselle, B. (2002). Coalition and party formation in a legislative voting game. Journal of Economic Theory, 103(1):49–87.

Kalandrakis, T. (2006). Regularity of pure strategy equilibrium points in a class of bargaining games. Economic Theory, 28(2):309–329.

Kultti, K. (2000). A model of random matching and price formation. European economic review, 44(10):1841–1856.

McKelvey, R. and Palfrey, T. (1995). Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1):6–38.

Merlo, A. and Wilson, C. (1995). A stochastic model of sequential bargaining with complete information. Econometrica, 63(2):371–399.

Merlo, A. and Wilson, C. (1998). Efficient delays in a stochastic model of bargaining. Economic Theory, 11(1):39–55.

Persson, T. (2002). Do political institutions shape economic policy? Econometrica, 70(3):883–905.

Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. (2004). Constitutional rules and fiscal policy outcomes. American Economic Review, 94(1):25–45.

Rubinstein, A. and Wolinsky, A. (1985). Equilibrium in a market with sequential bargaining. Econometrica, pages 1133–1150.

Selten, R. (1975). Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games. International Journal of Game Theory, 4:25–55.

Shapley, L. and Shubik, M. (1966). Quasi-cores in a monetary economy with non-convex preferences. Econometrica, 34(4):805–827.

Shimomura, K. (1997). Quasi-cores in bargaining sets. International Journal of Game Theory, 26(3):283–302.

Turocy, T. (2005). A dynamic homotopy interpretation of the logistic quantal response equilibrium correspondence. Games and Economic Behavior, 51(2):243–263.

Turocy, T. (2010). Computing sequential equilibria using agent quantal response equilibria. Economic Theory, 42(1):255–269.

Winter, E. (1994). The demand commitment bargaining and snowballing cooperation. Economic Theory, 4(2):255–273.

Wooders, J. (1998). Matching and bargaining models of markets: approximating small markets by large markets. Economic Theory, 11(1):215–224.