IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/poleco/v75y2022ics0176268022000349.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic alliances in a veto game: An experimental study

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Chulyoung
  • Kim, Sang-Hyun
  • Lee, Jinhyuk
  • Lee, Joosung

Abstract

In a veto game, we investigate the effects of “buyout” which allows non-veto players strategically form an intermediate coalition. First, our experimental findings show that the proportion of intermediate coalition formation is much lower than predicted by theory, regardless of the relative negotiation power between veto and non-veto players. Second, allowing coalition formation among non-veto players does not affect the surplus distribution between veto and non-veto players, which diverges from core allocations. These findings contrast to the literature, which views the ability to form an intermediate coalition as a valuable asset for non-veto players in increasing their bargaining power.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Chulyoung & Kim, Sang-Hyun & Lee, Jinhyuk & Lee, Joosung, 2022. "Strategic alliances in a veto game: An experimental study," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:poleco:v:75:y:2022:i:c:s0176268022000349
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2022.102219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268022000349
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2022.102219?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 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. Armando Gomes & Philippe Jehiel, 2005. "Dynamic Processes of Social and Economic Interactions: On the Persistence of Inefficiencies," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(3), pages 626-667, June.
    2. Stefan Kohler & Karl H. Schlag, 2019. "Inequality Aversion Causes Equal Or Unequal Division In Alternating‐Offer Bargaining," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 47-57, January.
    3. John Kagel & Hankyoung Sung & Eyal Winter, 2010. "Veto power in committees: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(2), pages 167-188, June.
    4. Baron, David P. & Ferejohn, John A., 1989. "Bargaining in Legislatures," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(4), pages 1181-1206, December.
    5. Lee, Joosung & Driessen, Theo S.H., 2012. "Sequentially two-leveled egalitarianism for TU games: Characterization and application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(3), pages 736-743.
    6. Maria Montero, 2007. "Inequity Aversion May Increase Inequity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(519), pages 192-204, March.
    7. Maria Montero & Martin Sefton & Ping Zhang, 2008. "Enlargement and the balance of power: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(1), pages 69-87, January.
    8. Kalyan Chatterjee & Bhaskar Dutia & Debraj Ray & Kunal Sengupta, 2013. "A Noncooperative Theory of Coalitional Bargaining," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Bargaining in the Shadow of the Market Selected Papers on Bilateral and Multilateral Bargaining, chapter 5, pages 97-111, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Akira Okada, 2000. "The Efficiency Principle in Non-Cooperative Coalitional Bargaining," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 34-50, March.
    10. Andrzej Baranski, 2016. "Voluntary Contributions and Collective Redistribution," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 149-173, November.
    11. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    12. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    13. Duk Gyoo Kim & Sang‐Hyun Kim, 2022. "Multilateral bargaining with proposer selection contest," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(1), pages 38-73, February.
    14. Gul, Faruk, 1989. "Bargaining Foundations of Shapley Value," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(1), pages 81-95, January.
    15. Drouvelis, Michalis & Montero, Maria & Sefton, Martin, 2010. "Gaining power through enlargement: Strategic foundations and experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 274-292, July.
    16. Guillaume Fréchette & John Kagel & Massimo Morelli, 2012. "Pork versus public goods: an experimental study of public good provision within a legislative bargaining framework," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 49(3), pages 779-800, April.
    17. Nels Christiansen & John H. Kagel, 2019. "Reference point effects in legislative bargaining: experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(3), pages 735-752, September.
    18. Okada, Akira, 1996. "A Noncooperative Coalitional Bargaining Game with Random Proposers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 97-108, September.
    19. J. Keith Murnighan & Alvin E. Roth, 1977. "The Effects of Communication and Information Availability in an Experimental Study of a Three-Person Game," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(12), pages 1336-1348, August.
    20. Olivier Compte & Philippe Jehiel, 2010. "The Coalitional Nash Bargaining Solution," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(5), pages 1593-1623, September.
    21. Agranov, Marina & Tergiman, Chloe, 2014. "Communication in multilateral bargaining," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 75-85.
    22. Marina Agranov & Chloe Tergiman, 2019. "Communication in bargaining games with unanimity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 350-368, June.
    23. Armando Gomes, 2005. "Multilateral Contracting with Externalities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1329-1350, July.
    24. Bouton, Laurent & Llorente-Saguer, Aniol & Malherbe, Frédéric, 2017. "Unanimous rules in the laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 179-198.
    25. Gul, Faruk & Sonnenschein, Hugo & Wilson, Robert, 1986. "Foundations of dynamic monopoly and the coase conjecture," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 155-190, June.
    26. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David B. Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2017. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," NBER Working Papers 23943, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    27. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    28. Fréchette, Guillaume R. & Kagel, John H. & Lehrer, Steven F., 2003. "Bargaining in Legislatures: An Experimental Investigation of Open versus Closed Amendment Rules," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(2), pages 221-232, May.
    29. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    30. Michael Maschler, 1963. "The Power of a Coalition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 8-29, October.
    31. Winter, Eyal, 1996. "Voting and Vetoing," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(4), pages 813-823, December.
    32. Andrzej Baranski, 2019. "Endogenous claims and collective production: an experimental study on the timing of profit-sharing negotiations and production," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 857-884, December.
    33. Shapley, L. S. & Shubik, Martin, 1954. "A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 787-792, September.
    34. R J Johnston, 1978. "On the Measurement of Power: Some Reactions to Laver," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 10(8), pages 907-914, August.
    35. Youjin Hahn & Chulyoung Kim & Sang-Hyun Kim, 2021. "Endowment Effects in Proposal Rights Contests," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 177(4), pages 449-476.
    36. Daniel J. Seidmann & Eyal Winter, 1998. "A Theory of Gradual Coalition Formation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 65(4), pages 793-815.
    37. Nowak, Andrzej S & Radzik, Tadeusz, 1994. "A Solidarity Value for n-Person Transferable Utility Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 23(1), pages 43-48.
    38. Kim, Taekwon & Jeon, Yongil, 2009. "Stationary perfect equilibria of an n-person noncooperative bargaining game and cooperative solution concepts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(3), pages 922-932, May.
    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. Joosung Lee, 2013. "Bargaining and Buyout," 2013 Papers ple701, Job Market Papers.
    2. Andrzej Baranski & Rebecca Morton, 2022. "The determinants of multilateral bargaining: a comprehensive analysis of Baron and Ferejohn majoritarian bargaining experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1079-1108, September.
    3. Ray, Debraj & Vohra, Rajiv, 2015. "Coalition Formation," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    4. Akira Okada, 2015. "Cooperation and Institution in Games," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 66(1), pages 1-32, March.
    5. Li, Shuwen & Houser, Daniel, 2022. "Stochastic bargaining in the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 687-715.
    6. Nunnari, Salvatore, 2021. "Dynamic legislative bargaining with veto power: Theory and experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 186-230.
    7. Miller, Luis & Montero, Maria & Vanberg, Christoph, 2018. "Legislative bargaining with heterogeneous disagreement values: Theory and experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 60-92.
    8. Wagner, Alexander K. & Granic, Dura-Georg, 2017. "Tie-Breaking Power in Committees," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168187, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    9. Maria Montero, 2023. "Coalition Formation in Games with Externalities," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 525-548, June.
    10. Maria Montero, 2023. "Coalition Formation in Games with Externalities," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 525-548, June.
    11. Eraslan, Hülya & McLennan, Andrew, 2013. "Uniqueness of stationary equilibrium payoffs in coalitional bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(6), pages 2195-2222.
    12. Okada, Akira, 2011. "Coalitional bargaining games with random proposers: Theory and application," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 227-235, September.
    13. Aaron Kamm & Simon Siegenthaler, 2024. "Commitment timing in coalitional bargaining," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(1), pages 130-154, March.
    14. Kim, Duk Gyoo & Lim, Wooyoung, 2024. "Multilateral bargaining over the division of losses," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 59-76.
    15. Breitmoser, Yves & Tan, Jonathan H.W., 2020. "Why should majority voting be unfair?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 281-295.
    16. Okada, Akira, 2010. "The Nash bargaining solution in general n-person cooperative games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(6), pages 2356-2379, November.
    17. Merkel, Anna & Vanberg, Christoph, 2023. "Multilateral bargaining with subjective claims under majority vs. unanimity rule: An experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    18. Drouvelis, Michalis & Montero, Maria & Sefton, Martin, 2010. "Gaining power through enlargement: Strategic foundations and experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 274-292, July.
    19. Breitmoser, Yves & Tan, Jonathan H.W., 2014. "Reference Dependent Altruism," MPRA Paper 52774, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Sauermann, Jan & Beckmann, Paul, 2019. "The influence of group size on distributional fairness under voting by veto," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 90-102.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Game theory; Coalition bargaining; Veto game; Experiment; Non-core allocation; Intermediate coalition formation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions

    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:75:y:2022:i:c:s0176268022000349. 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.