IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v141y2009i3p277-290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Endogenous choice of amendment agendas: types of voters and experimental evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Oleg Smirnov

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Oleg Smirnov, 2009. "Endogenous choice of amendment agendas: types of voters and experimental evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 141(3), pages 277-290, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:141:y:2009:i:3:p:277-290
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-009-9451-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11127-009-9451-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-009-9451-x?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. Charles A. Holt & Lisa R. Anderson, 1999. "Agendas and Strategic Voting," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(3), pages 622-629, January.
    2. Plott, Charles R & Levine, Michael E, 1978. "A Model of Agenda Influence on Committee Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(1), pages 146-160, March.
    3. Frey, Bruno S & Eichenberger, Reiner, 1991. "Anomalies in Political Economy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 68(1-3), pages 71-89, January.
    4. Cherry, Todd L & Kroll, Stephan, 2003. "Crashing the Party: An Experimental Investigation of Strategic Voting in Primary Elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 114(3-4), pages 387-420, March.
    5. Eckel, Catherine & Holt, Charles A, 1989. "Strategic Voting in Agenda-Controlled Committee Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 763-773, September.
    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. Autumn Bynum & Reuben Kline & Oleg Smirnov, 2016. "Passive non-participation versus strategic defection in a collective risk social dilemma," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 138-158, January.

    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. Anna Bassi, 2015. "Voting systems and strategic manipulation: An experimental study," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(1), pages 58-85, January.
    2. Meffert, Michael F. & Gschwend, Thomas, 2007. "Strategic Voting under Proportional Representation and Coalition Governments: A Simulation and Laboratory Experiment," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 07-55, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    3. Charles A. Holt, 2003. "Economic Science: An Experimental Approach for Teaching and Research," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(4), pages 754-771, April.
    4. Karine Van der Straeten & Jean-François Laslier & Nicolas Sauger & André Blais, 2010. "Strategic, sincere, and heuristic voting under four election rules: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(3), pages 435-472, September.
    5. Apesteguia, Jose & Ballester, Miguel A. & Masatlioglu, Yusufcan, 2014. "A foundation for strategic agenda voting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 91-99.
    6. de Bartolome, Charles A. M., 1995. "Which tax rate do people use: Average or marginal?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 79-96, January.
    7. Paul D. Carlsen & Jac C. Heckelman, 2016. "State bloc versus individual delegate voting at the constitutional convention: Did it make a difference?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(3), pages 781-800, January.
    8. Charles A. Holt & Lisa R. Anderson, 1999. "Agendas and Strategic Voting," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(3), pages 622-629, January.
    9. Ganna Pogrebna & Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2009. "Coordination, focal points and voting in strategic situations: a natural experiment," IEW - Working Papers 403, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    10. Daniel Zizzo, 2010. "Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 75-98, March.
    11. Meszerics, Tamás, 1997. "Stratégiai viselkedés és bizottsági döntés [Strategic behaviour and committee decison]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 687-697.
    12. Mark T. Kanazawa, 2019. "Transaction Costs in Water Transfers: The issue of local control," Working Papers 2019-01, Carleton College, Department of Economics.
    13. Davis, James H. & Zarnoth, Paul & Hulbert, Lorne & Chen, Xiao-ping & Parks, Craig & Nam, Kidok, 1997. "The Committee Charge, Framing Interpersonal Agreement, and Consensus Models of Group Quantitative Judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 137-157, November.
    14. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    15. Yan, Jubo & Kniffin, Kevin M. & Kunreuther, Howard C. & Schulze, William D., 2020. "The roles of reason and emotion in private and public responses to terrorism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 778-796.
    16. Ehrhart, Karl-Martin & Gardner, Roy & von Hagen, Jurgen & Keser, Claudia, 2007. "Budget processes: Theory and experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 279-295, May.
    17. Vernon L. Smith, 1980. "Relevance of Laboratory Experiments to Testing Resource Allocation Theory," NBER Chapters, in: Evaluation of Econometric Models, pages 345-377, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Kenneth Koford, 1982. "Centralized vote-trading," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 245-268, January.
    19. Marilyn Flowers, 1981. "Agenda control and budget size: An extension of the Romer-Rosenthal model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 579-584, January.
    20. Matthew D. Mitchell, 2019. "Uncontestable favoritism," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 167-190, October.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:141:y:2009:i:3:p:277-290. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.