IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v181y2019i3d10.1007_s11127-019-00658-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fairness and qualitative portfolio allocation in multiparty governments

Author

Listed:
  • Alejandro Ecker

    (University of Mannheim)

  • Thomas M. Meyer

    (University of Vienna)

Abstract

How do political parties divide coalition payoffs in multiparty governments? Perhaps the most striking answer to this question is Gamson’s Law, which suggests a strong fairness norm in the allocation of office payoffs among coalition partners. Building upon recent advancements in portfolio allocation research, we extend this approach in three important ways. First, we study fairness with regard to the allocation of policy (rather than office) payoffs. Second, we introduce measures to assess the fairness of the division of policy payoffs following two norms: envy-freeness and equitability. Third, we explore why some allocations of ministerial portfolios deviate from fairness norms. Based on an original data set of party preferences for individual portfolios in Western and Central Eastern Europe, we find substantial variation in the fairness of policy payoffs across cabinets. Moreover, coalitions are more likely to arrive at envy-free and equitable bargaining outcomes if (1) these fair allocations are based on an allocation of cabinet positions that is proportional to party size and if (2) the bargaining power is distributed evenly among government parties. The results suggest that fairness is not a universal norm for portfolio allocation in multiparty governments, but in fact depends on the cabinet parties’ bargaining positions.

Suggested Citation

  • Alejandro Ecker & Thomas M. Meyer, 2019. "Fairness and qualitative portfolio allocation in multiparty governments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 309-330, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:181:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-019-00658-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-019-00658-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-019-00658-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-019-00658-8?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. Stephen Ansolabehere & James M. Snyder & Aaron B. Strauss & Michael M. Ting, 2005. "Voting Weights and Formateur Advantages in the Formation of Coalition Governments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 550-563, July.
    2. Steven J. Brams & Todd R. Kaplan, 2002. "Dividing the Indivisible: Procedures for Allocating Cabinet Ministries to Political Parties in a Parliamentary System," Discussion Papers 0202, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    3. Martin, Lanny W. & Vanberg, Georg, 2005. "Coalition Policymaking and Legislative Review," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(1), pages 93-106, February.
    4. Cutler, Josh & De Marchi, Scott & Gallop, Max & Hollenbach, Florian M. & Laver, Michael & Orlowski, Matthias, 2016. "Cabinet Formation and Portfolio Distribution in European Multiparty Systems," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 31-43, January.
    5. Robert Thomson & Terry Royed & Elin Naurin & Joaquín Artés & Rory Costello & Laurenz Ennser‐Jedenastik & Mark Ferguson & Petia Kostadinova & Catherine Moury & François Pétry & Katrin Praprotnik, 2017. "The Fulfillment of Parties’ Election Pledges: A Comparative Study on the Impact of Power Sharing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(3), pages 527-542, July.
    6. Tavits, Margit, 2008. "The Role of Parties' Past Behavior in Coalition Formation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(4), pages 495-507, November.
    7. Lupia, Arthur & Strøm, Kaare, 1995. "Coalition Termination and the Strategic Timing of Parliamentary Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 648-665, September.
    8. Royce Carroll & Gary W. Cox, 2007. "The Logic of Gamson's Law: Pre‐election Coalitions and Portfolio Allocations," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(2), pages 300-313, April.
    9. Warwick, Paul V. & Druckman, James N., 2001. "Portfolio Salience and the Proportionality of Payoffs in Coalition Governments," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 627-649, October.
    10. Browne, Eric C. & Franklin, Mark N., 1973. "Aspects of Coalition Payoffs in European Parliamentary Democracies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(2), pages 453-469, June.
    11. Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik, 2014. "The Politics of Patronage and Coalition: How Parties Allocate Managerial Positions in State-Owned Enterprises," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 62(2), pages 398-417, June.
    12. Lanny W. Martin & Georg Vanberg, 2004. "Policing the Bargain: Coalition Government and Parliamentary Scrutiny," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 13-27, January.
    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. Aaron Kamm & Simon Siegenthaler, 2024. "Commitment timing in coalitional bargaining," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(1), pages 130-154, March.
    2. Enzo Lenine, 2020. "Modelling Coalitions: From Concept Formation to Tailoring Empirical Explanations," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-12, November.
    3. Nataliya Demyanenko & Pierfrancesco Mura, 2023. "Gamson–Shapley Laws: a formal approach to parliamentary coalition formation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Michael Laver & Scott Marchi & Hande Mutlu, 2011. "Negotiation in legislatures over government formation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 147(3), pages 285-304, June.
    5. Michael Becher, 2019. "Dissolution power, confidence votes, and policymaking in parliamentary democracies," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(2), pages 183-208, April.
    6. Cox, Gary W. & Fiva, Jon H. & Smith, Daniel M. & Sørensen, Rune J., 2021. "Moral hazard in electoral teams: List rank and campaign effort," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    7. Goodhart, Lucy, 2013. "Who Decides? Coalition Governance and Ministerial Discretion," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 8(3), pages 205-237, June.
    8. Chessa, Michela & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Lardon, Aymeric & Yamada, Takashi, 2023. "An experiment on the Nash program: A comparison of two strategic mechanisms implementing the Shapley value," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 88-104.
    9. Eligius M. T. Hendrix & Annelies Ridder & Agnieszka Rusinowska & M. Elena Sáiz, 2013. "Coalition Formation: The Role of Procedure and Policy Flexibility," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 407-427, May.
    10. Mihir Bhattacharya, 2018. "A model of electoral competition between national and regional parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(3), pages 335-357, July.
    11. David P Baron, 2018. "Elections and durable governments in parliamentary governments," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(1), pages 74-118, January.
    12. Manow, Philip & Zorn, Hendrik, 2004. "Office versus Policy Motives in Portfolio Allocation: The Case of Junior Ministers," MPIfG Discussion Paper 04/9, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    13. Michael Koch & Scott Sigmund Gartner, 2005. "Casualties and Constituencies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(6), pages 874-894, December.
    14. Thomas König & Bernd Luig, 2014. "Ministerial gatekeeping and parliamentary involvement in the implementation process of EU directives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 501-519, September.
    15. Yasutora Watanabe, 2008. "Ministerial Weights and Government Formation: Estimation Using a Bargaining Model," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 95-119, May.
    16. Thomas Fujiwara & Carlos Sanz, 2020. "Rank Effects in Bargaining: Evidence from Government Formation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 87(3), pages 1261-1295.
    17. Daron Acemoglu & Georgy Egorov & Konstantin Sonin, 2006. "Coalition Formation in Political Games," Working Papers w0090, New Economic School (NES).
    18. James M. Snyder Jr. & Michael M. Ting & Stephen Ansolabehere, 2005. "Legislative Bargaining under Weighted Voting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 981-1004, September.
    19. Orestis Troumpounis & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2016. "Incomplete information, proportional representation and strategic voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(4), pages 879-903, December.
    20. Michel Breton & Ignacio Ortuño-Ortin & Shlomo Weber, 2008. "Gamson’s law and hedonic games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(1), pages 57-67, January.

    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:181:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-019-00658-8. 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.