IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v12y2021i1p6-d480167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Parties’ Preferences for Office and Policy Goals

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Bassi

    (Department of Political Science, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3265, USA)

Abstract

Although parties’ preferences for office and policy goals have been featured by many rational choice models of party behavior and a majority of coalition theories, the literature still lacks a measure and a comprehensive analysis of how parties’ preferences vary among parties and across countries. This study aims to fill this gap by presenting the results of an original expert survey protocol, which finds that parties pursue both goals simultaneously as office is sought both as and an end and as a means to affect policy, and that the degree to which they prefer policy versus office objectives varies across parties and countries. I provide an application of the preference ratings for policy versus office in the context of government formation, by using the ratings to solve for and predict the equilibrium coalition that should have formed in Spain after the 2015 elections. The government predicted by the model matches the government that formed, providing evidence of the ability of the preference ratings to generate reliable predictions of the composition of government coalitions.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Bassi, 2021. "Parties’ Preferences for Office and Policy Goals," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-29, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:12:y:2021:i:1:p:6-:d:480167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/12/1/6/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/12/1/6/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baron, David P. & Ferejohn, John A., 1989. "Bargaining in Legislatures," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(4), pages 1181-1206, December.
    2. Anna Bassi, 2013. "A Model of Endogenous Government Formation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(4), pages 777-793, October.
    3. Lindstädt, René & Proksch, Sven-Oliver & Slapin, Jonathan B., 2020. "When Experts Disagree: Response Aggregation and its Consequences in Expert Surveys," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 580-588, July.
    4. Wittman, Donald A., 1973. "Parties as Utility Maximizers," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(2), pages 490-498, June.
    5. Diermeier, Daniel & Merlo, Antonio, 2000. "Government Turnover in Parliamentary Democracies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 46-79, September.
    6. Austen-Smith, David & Banks, Jeffrey, 1988. "Elections, Coalitions, and Legislative Outcomes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(2), pages 405-422, June.
    7. Morelli, Massimo, 1999. "Demand Competition and Policy Compromise in Legislative Bargaining," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 809-820, December.
    8. Martin, Lanny W. & Stevenson, Randolph T., 2010. "The Conditional Impact of Incumbency on Government Formation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(3), pages 503-518, August.
    9. Martin, Lanny W. & Vanberg, Georg, 2003. "Wasting Time? The Impact of Ideology and Size on Delay in Coalition Formation," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 323-332, April.
    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. Antonio Merlo, 2005. "Whither Political Economy? Theories, Facts and Issues," PIER Working Paper Archive 05-033, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 01 Dec 2005.
    2. , & ,, 2014. "Rhetoric in legislative bargaining with asymmetric information," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(2), May.
    3. Chen, Ying & Eraslan, Hülya, 2013. "Rhetoric in legislative bargaining with asymmetric information," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 1309, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    4. Hughes, Niall, 2016. "Voting in legislative elections under plurality rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 51-93.
    5. Agnieszka Rusinowska & Harrie Swart, 2008. "Negotiating a Stable Government: An Application of Bargaining Theory to a Coalition Formation Model," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 445-464, September.
    6. Jan Zápal, 2017. "Crafting consensus," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 169-200, October.
    7. Maria Gallego, David Scoones, 2005. "The Art of Compromise," Working Papers eg0042, Wilfrid Laurier University, Department of Economics, revised 2005.
    8. Marco Battaglini & Eleonora Patacchini & Edoardo Rainone, 2019. "Endogenous Social Connections in Legislatures," NBER Working Papers 25988, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Aaron Kamm & Simon Siegenthaler, 2024. "Commitment timing in coalitional bargaining," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(1), pages 130-154, March.
    10. Bandyopadhyay, Siddhartha & Oak, Mandar P., 2008. "Coalition governments in a model of parliamentary democracy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 554-561, September.
    11. Francesco Giovannoni & Daniel Seidmann, 2014. "Corruption and power in democracies," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(3), pages 707-734, March.
    12. Diermeier, Daniel & Merlo, Antonio, 2004. "An empirical investigation of coalitional bargaining procedures," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 783-797, March.
    13. Sven de Vries & Rakesh Vohra, 2000. "A Structural Model of Government Formation," Discussion Papers 1297, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    14. Gomes, Armando, 2022. "Coalitional bargaining games: A new concept of value and coalition formation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 463-477.
    15. Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay & Mandar Oak, 2022. "Party Formation and Coalitional Bargaining in a Model of Proportional Representation," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, June.
    16. Marco Battaglini, 2021. "Coalition Formation in Legislative Bargaining," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(11), pages 3206-3258.
    17. David P Baron, 2018. "Elections and durable governments in parliamentary governments," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(1), pages 74-118, January.
    18. Hsu, Li-Chen & Yang, C.C. & Yang, Chun-Lei, 2008. "Positive- versus zero-sum majoritarian ultimatum games: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 498-510, December.
    19. Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay & Kalyan Chatterjee & Tomas Sjöström, 2013. "Pre-electoral Coalitions and Post-election Bargaining," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Bargaining in the Shadow of the Market Selected Papers on Bilateral and Multilateral Bargaining, chapter 7, pages 129-181, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Montero, Maria & Vidal-Puga, Juan J., 2007. "Demand Commitment in Legislative Bargaining," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(4), pages 847-850, November.

    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:gam:jgames:v:12:y:2021:i:1:p:6-:d:480167. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.