IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/defpea/v12y2001i4p285-302.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rent-seeking models of international competition: An experimental investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Bruce Linster
  • Richard Fullerton
  • Michael Mckee
  • Stephen Slate

Abstract

This paper experimentally tests a number of hypotheses that follow from models of international competition that are based on Tullock style rent-seeking models. Specifically, we designed and performed experiments to see how variations in the degree of publicness in the prize as well as changes in the values assigned to the prize affect alliances in terms of individual nation contributions, total contributions, burden sharing, and the likelihood of winning the prize. While there was substantial variation in individual behavior, the results of the experiments generally conform to the theoretical predictions of the rent-seeking model of international competition and alliances.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruce Linster & Richard Fullerton & Michael Mckee & Stephen Slate, 2001. "Rent-seeking models of international competition: An experimental investigation," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 285-302.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:defpea:v:12:y:2001:i:4:p:285-302
    DOI: 10.1080/10430710108404989
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10430710108404989
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10430710108404989?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oneal, John R., 1990. "The theory of collective action and burden sharing in NATO," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 379-402, July.
    2. Murdoch, James C. & Sandler, Todd, 1984. "Complementarity, free riding, and the military expenditures of NATO allies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1-2), pages 83-101, November.
    3. Todd Sandler, 1993. "The Economic Theory of Alliances," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(3), pages 446-483, September.
    4. Hartley, Thomas & Russett, Bruce, 1992. "Public Opinion and the Common Defense: Who Governs Military Spending in the United States?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(4), pages 905-915, December.
    5. Linster, Bruce G, 1993. "A Generalized Model of Rent-Seeking Behavior," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 421-435, October.
    6. Jyoti Khanna & Todd Sandler & Hirofumi Shimizu, 1998. "Sharing the Financial Burden for U.N. and NATO Peacekeeping, 1976-1996," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(2), pages 176-195, April.
    7. Todd Sandler & James C. Murdoch, 1990. "Nash-Cournot or Lindahl Behavior?: An Empirical Test for the NATO Allies," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 105(4), pages 875-894.
    8. Jyoti Khanna & Todd Sandler, 1997. "Conscription, peace-keeping, and foreign assistance: NATO burden sharing in the post-cold war era," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 101-121.
    9. Sandler, Todd & Khanna, Jyoti & Shimizu, Hirofumi, 1998. "Sharing the Financial Burden for Un and Nato Peacekeeping: 1976-96," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1216, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    2. Kimbrough, Erik & Sheremeta, Roman, 2014. "Why can’t we be friends? Entitlements and the costs of conflict," MPRA Paper 53253, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Roman M. Sheremeta & Theodore L. Turocy, 2012. "Overdissipation and Convergence in Rent-seeking Experiments: Cost structure and prize allocation rules," Working Papers 12-13, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    4. Chowdhury, Subhasish M. & Sheremeta, Roman M. & Turocy, Theodore L., 2014. "Overbidding and overspreading in rent-seeking experiments: Cost structure and prize allocation rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 224-238.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bernhard Klingen, 2011. "A Public Choice Perspective on Defense and Alliance Policy," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Anderton,Charles H. & Carter,John R., 2009. "Principles of Conflict Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521875578, December.
    3. Minoru Okamura, 2022. "Identifying the public goods allocation process: case of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 1707-1726, September.
    4. Renaud Bellais & Martial Foucault & Jean-Michel Oudot, 2014. "Économie de la défense," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01052607, HAL.
    5. Binyam Solomon, 2004. "Nato burden sharing revisited," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 251-258.
    6. William Gates & Katsuaki Terasawa, 2003. "Reconsidering publicness in alliance defence expenditures: NATO expansion and burden sharing," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 369-383.
    7. Tony Addison & Mark McGillivray & Matthew Odedokun, 2004. "Donor Funding of Multilateral Aid Agencies: Determining Factors and Revealed Burden Sharing," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 173-191, February.
    8. Todd Sandler, 1993. "The Economic Theory of Alliances," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(3), pages 446-483, September.
    9. George, Justin & Sandler, Todd, 2018. "Demand for military spending in NATO, 1968–2015: A spatial panel approach," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 222-236.
    10. Louis Parai, 2006. "A Note On The Economics Of Standby Versus Standing Peacekeeping Forces," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 413-419.
    11. Ugurhan G. Berkok & Binyam Solomon, 2011. "Peacekeeping, Private Benefits and Common Agency," Chapters, in: Derek L. Braddon & Keith Hartley (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Conflict, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Keith Hartley & Todd Sandler, 2001. "Economics of Alliances: The Lessons for Collective Action," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(3), pages 869-896, September.
    13. Hirofumi Shimizu & Todd Sandler, 2010. "Recent peacekeeping burden sharing," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(15), pages 1479-1484.
    14. Thomas Plümper & Eric Neumayer, 2015. "Free-riding in alliances: Testing an old theory with a new method," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(3), pages 247-268, July.
    15. Ansink, Erik & Weikard, Hans-Peter & Withagen, Cees, 2019. "International environmental agreements with support," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 241-252.
    16. Bove Vincenzo & Elia Leandro & Pelliccia Marco, 2016. "Centrality in Trade Networks and Investment in Security," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 22(1), pages 27-39, January.
    17. Philip Jones, 2007. "Colluding victims: A public choice analysis of international alliances," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 319-332, September.
    18. Kyle, Margaret K. & Ridley, David B. & Zhang, Su, 2017. "Strategic interaction among governments in the provision of a global public good," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 185-199.
    19. Erik Ansink & Cees A. Withagen, 2016. "Members, Joiners, Free-Riders, Supporters," CESifo Working Paper Series 5802, CESifo.
    20. David Rietzke & Brian Roberson, 2013. "The robustness of ‘enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend’ alliances," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 937-956, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:defpea:v:12:y:2001:i:4:p:285-302. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GDPE20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.