Guemmegne, Juliette and Pongou, Roland (2013): A PolicyBased Rationalization of Collective Rules: Dimensionality, Specialized Houses, and Decentralized Authority.

PDF
MPRA_paper_46019.pdf Download (219kB)  Preview 
Abstract
We offer a policy basis for interpreting, justifying, and designing (3,3)political rules, a large class of collective rules analogous to those governing the selection of papers in peerreviewed journals, where each referee chooses to accept, reject, or invite a resubmission of a paper, and an editor aggregates his own and referees' opinions into one of these three recommendations. We prove that any such rule is a weighted multicameral rule: a policy is collectively approved at a given level if and only if it is approved by a minimal number of chambers the dimension of the rule, where each chamber evaluates a different aspect of the policy using a weighted rule, with each evaluator's weight or authority possibly varying across chambers depending on his area(s) of expertise. Conversely, it is always possible to design a rule under which a policy is collectively approved at a given level if and only if it meets a certain number of predefined criteria, so that one can set the standards for policies first, and then design the rules that justify the passage of policies meeting those standards. These results imply that a given rule is only suitable for evaluating finitedimensional policies whose dimension corresponds to that of the rule, and they provide a rationale for using different rules to pass different policies even within the same organization. We further introduce the concept of compatibility with a rule, and use it to propose a method to construct integer weights corresponding to evaluators' possible judgments under a given rule, which are more intuitive and easier to interpret for policymakers. Our findings shed light on multicameralism in political institutions and multicriteria group decisionmaking in the firm. We provide applications to peer review politics, rating systems, and realworld organizations.
Item Type:  MPRA Paper 

Original Title:  A PolicyBased Rationalization of Collective Rules: Dimensionality, Specialized Houses, and Decentralized Authority 
English Title:  A PolicyBased Rationalization of Collective Rules: Dimensionality, Specialized Houses, and Decentralized Authority 
Language:  English 
Keywords:  (3,3)political rules, multicameralism, multicriteria group decisionmaking, decentralized authority, rule suitability and design 
Subjects:  D  Microeconomics > D7  Analysis of Collective DecisionMaking > D71  Social Choice ; Clubs ; Committees ; Associations D  Microeconomics > D7  Analysis of Collective DecisionMaking > D72  Political Processes: RentSeeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior H  Public Economics > H4  Publicly Provided Goods > H40  General K  Law and Economics > K1  Basic Areas of Law > K10  General 
Item ID:  46019 
Depositing User:  Dr. Roland Pongou 
Date Deposited:  10 Apr 2013 14:41 
Last Modified:  26 Sep 2019 14:45 
References:  Acemoglu, D., Egorov, G., and Sonin, K. (2011). Dynamics and Stability of Constitutions, Coalitions, and Clubs. American Economic Review, 102(4), 14461476. Arrow, K.J. (1963). Social Choice and Individual Values. 2nd ed. Wiley. New York. Barberà, S., and Jackson, M.O. (2006). On the Weights of Nations: Assigning Voting Power to Heterogeneous Voters. Journal of Political Economy, 114(2), 317339. Baucells, M., and Sarin, R.K. (2003). Group Decisions with Multiple Criteria. Management Science, 49(8), 11051118. Brams, S.J. (1975). Game Theory and Politics. New York: Free Press. Bräuninger, T. (2003). When Simple Voting Doesn't Work: Multicameral Systems for the Representation and Aggregation of Interests in International Organizations. British Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 681703. Buchanan, J.M., and Tullock, G. (1962). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Deineko, V.G., Woeginger, G.J. (2006). On the Dimension of Simple Monotonic Games. European Journal of Operational Research, 170(1), 315318. Felsenthal, D.S, Machover, M. (1998). The Measurement of Voting Power. Theory and Practice. Problems and Paradoxes. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Felsenthal, D.S., Machover, M. (1997). Ternary Voting Games. International Journal of Game Theory, 26(3), 335351. Fishburn, P.C. (1973). The theory of social choice. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Freixas, J., and Puente, M.A. (2008). Dimension of Complete Simple Games with Minimum. European Journal of Operational Research, 188(2), 555568. Freixas, J., and Zwicker, W.S. (2003). Weighted Voting, Abstention, and Multiple Levels of Approval. Social Choice and Welfare, 21(3), 399431. Freixas, J., and Zwicker, W.S. (2009). Anonymous yesno Voting with Abstention and Multiple Levels of Approval. Games and Economic Behavior, 67(2), 428444. Hsiao, R., and Raghavan, T.E.S. (1993). Shapley Value for Multichoice Cooperative Games, I. Games and Economic Behavior, 5(2), 240256. Kilgour, D.M. (1983). A Formal Analysis of the Amending Formula of Canada's Constitution Act. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 16(4), 771777. Laruelle, A., and Valenciano, F. (2008). Voting and Collective DecisionMaking: Bargaining and Power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. Laruelle, A., and Valenciano, F. (2011). Quaternary Dichotomous Voting Rules. Social Choice and Welfare. Forthcoming. Leech, D. 1988. The Relationship between Shareholding Concentration and Shareholder Voting Power in British Companies: a Study of the Application of Power Indices for Simple Games. Management Science, 34(4), 509527. Leech, D. (2003). Computing Power Indices for Large Voting Games. Management Science, 49(6), 831837. Peleg, B. (1978). Consistent Voting Systems. Econometrica, 46(1), 153161. Peleg, B. (1984). Game Theoretic Analysis of Voting in Committees. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pongou, R., Tchantcho, B., and Diffo Lambo, L. (2011). Political Influence in MultiChoice Institutions: Cyclicity, Anonymity, and Transitivity. Theory and Decision, 70(2), 157178. Ray, D. (2007). A GameTheoretic Perspective on Coalition Formation. London: Oxford University Press. Rogers, J. R. 2001. An Informational Rational for Congruent Bicameralism. Journal of theoretical politics,13(2), 123151. Rowley, C.K., and Schneider, F. (2004). The Encyclopedia of Public Choice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2, 39. Rubinstein, A. 1980. Stability of Decision Systems under Majority Rule. J. Econ. Theory, 23(2), 150159. Shapley, L.S. (1953). A Value for nperson Games. In Contributions to the Theory of Games, volume II, by H.W. Kuhn and A.W. Tucker, editors. Annals of Mathematical Studies, (28), 307317. Princeton University Press. Taylor, A.D., and Zwicker, W.S. (1992). A Characterization of Weighted Voting. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 115(4), 10891094. Taylor, A.D., and Zwicker, W.S. (1993). Weighted Voting Multicameral Representation and Power. Games and Economic Behavior, 5(1), 170181. Taylor, A.D., and Zwicker, W.S. (1999). Simple Games. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Tchantcho, B., Diffo Lambo, L., Pongou, R., and Mbama Engoulou, B. (2008). Voters' Power in Voting Games with Abstention: Influence Relation and Ordinal Equivalence of Power Theories. Games and Economic Behavior, 64(1), 335350. Torun, D., and Spirling, A. (2011). Strategic Opposition and Government Cohesion in Westminster Democracies. American Political Science Review, 105(2), 337358. von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 
URI:  https://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/id/eprint/46019 