IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/poleco/v19y2003i4p715-733.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Divided government and dominance solvability

Author

Listed:
  • Iannantuoni, Giovanna

Abstract

Using the spatial theory of voting, this paper describes an institutional structure where there are two branches of the government: the executive, elected by plurality rule, and the legislative elected by proportional rule. The resulting policy outcome is described through a compromise between these two branches. The parties announce their position on a policy issue and then voters vote. We prove the uniqueness of Nash equilibrium in the subgame, where the election of the president is known. Moreover, this equilibrium can be obtained by the process of iterated elimination of dominated strategies. We then solve the whole game by backward induction. Furthermore, the policy outcome at equilibrium of the two-stage game is the same of the simultaneous game, where voters simultaneously choose the two branches. The results suggest a moderate behavior of the voters, basically due to the will to balance the policy outcome.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Iannantuoni, Giovanna, 2003. "Divided government and dominance solvability," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 715-733, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:poleco:v:19:y:2003:i:4:p:715-733
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176-2680(03)00031-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francesco De Sinopoli, 2000. "Sophisticated voting and equilibrium refinements under plurality rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 17(4), pages 655-672.
    2. Enelow,James M. & Hinich,Melvin J., 1984. "The Spatial Theory of Voting," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521275156, January.
    3. Elhanan Helpman & Gene M. Grossman, 1999. "Competing for Endorsements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 501-524, June.
    4. Jean-François Mertens, 1989. "Stable Equilibria---A Reformulation," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 575-625, November.
    5. Alesina, Alberto & Rosenthal, Howard, 1996. "A Theory of Divided Government," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(6), pages 1311-1341, November.
    6. MERTENS, Jean-François, 1989. "Stable equilibria - a reformulation. Part I. Definition and basic properties," LIDAM Reprints CORE 866, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    7. Alesina, Alberto & Rosenthal, Howard, 2000. "Polarized platforms and moderate policies with checks and balances," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 1-20, January.
    8. DE SINOPOLI, Francesco, 1998. "Two results about generic non cooperative voting games with plurality rule," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1998034, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    9. Shugart,Matthew Soberg & Carey,John M., 1992. "Presidents and Assemblies," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521429900, January.
    10. Shugart,Matthew Soberg & Carey,John M., 1992. "Presidents and Assemblies," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521419628, January.
    11. Wittman, Donald, 1977. "Candidates with policy preferences: A dynamic model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 180-189, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Francesco De Sinopoli & Leo Ferraris & Giovanna Iannantuoni, 2013. "Electing a parliament," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 715-737, March.
    2. Francesco Sinopoli & Giovanna Iannantuoni, 2007. "A spatial voting model where proportional rule leads to two-party equilibria," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 35(2), pages 267-286, January.
    3. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    4. De Sinopoli, Francesco, 2004. "A note on forward induction in a model of representative democracy," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 41-54, January.
    5. Torsten Persson & Gerard Roland & Guido Tabellini, 2000. "Comparative Politics and Public Finance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(6), pages 1121-1161, December.
    6. Anesi, Vincent, 2010. "Noncooperative foundations of stable sets in voting games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 488-493, November.
    7. DE SINOPOLI, Francesco, 1998. "Strategic stability and non cooperative voting games: the plurality rule," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1998043, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    8. Humberto Llavador, 2006. "Electoral Platforms, Implemented Policies, and Abstention," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(1), pages 55-81, August.
    9. Alesina, Alberto & Rosenthal, Howard, 2000. "Polarized platforms and moderate policies with checks and balances," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 1-20, January.
    10. Scott Ashworth & Ethan Bueno de Mesquita, 2008. "Informative Party Labels With Institutional and Electoral Variation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 20(3), pages 251-273, July.
    11. Postl, Peter, 2017. "Évaluation et comparaison des règles de vote derrière le voile de l’ignorance : Tour d'horizon sélectif et analyse des règles de scores à deux paramètres," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 93(1-2), pages 249-290, Mars-Juin.
    12. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos, 2022. "The Trembling Chairman Paradox," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 51-56.
    13. Yukio KORIYAMA & Matias Nunez, 2014. "Hybrid Procedures," THEMA Working Papers 2014-02, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    14. Thomas H. Hammond & Christopher K. Butler, 2003. "Some Complex Answers to the Simple Question ‘Do Institutions Matter?’," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(2), pages 145-200, April.
    15. DE SINOPOLI, Francesco, 1999. "Further remarks on strategic stability in plurality games," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1999030, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    16. Lucas Ferrero & Leandro M. de Magalhães, 2005. "Separation of Powers, Line Item Veto and the Tax Level: Evidence from the American States Draft 1," Working Papers 0031, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Department of Economics.
    17. Amihai Glazer & Mark Gradstein, 2005. "Elections with contribution-maximizing candidates," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 467-482, March.
    18. Francesco Sinopoli & Giovanna Iannantuoni & Carlos Pimienta, 2014. "Counterexamples on the Superiority of Approval versus Plurality," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(5), pages 824-834, October.
    19. Torsten Persson & Guido Tabellini, "undated". "Political Institutions and Policy Outcomes: What are the Stylized Facts?," Working Papers 189, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    20. Gary Goertz & Tony Hak & Jan Dul, 2013. "Ceilings and Floors," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(1), pages 3-40, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:poleco:v:19:y:2003:i:4:p:715-733. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505544 .

    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.