IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v20y1976i4p563-588.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Behavioral Model of Coalition Formation

Author

Listed:
  • Mushin Lee

    (Korea Institute of Science and Technology)

  • Howard Rosenthal

Abstract

The 1951 elections for the French National Assembly permitted the formation of distinct formalized coalitions in each of 95 multimember districts. The resulting coalition outcomes are analyzed via a behavioral model that emphasizes real-time constraints that are largely ignored by formal game theory. Other major features of the model include: (1) coalitions are built incrementally and without defection until a coalition controls a majority of the votes; (2) offers to prospective partners are constrained by a graph that represents ideological and other constraints; (3) offers are made probabilistically, proportional to the votes controlled by the potential allies; (4) reciprocated offers are necessary and sufficient for a coalition to form. Estimated with data from districts with five or fewer coalescable parties or lists, the model is validated on districts with six parties or lists. The model has modest explanatory power, its major failure suggesting the influence of political forces at the national level that are beyond the scope of the district level model. Quite speculatively, these national forces may have been essential to preventing De Gaulle's coming to power in 1951. The model attests to both ideological and opportunistic facets of Fourth Republic politics.

Suggested Citation

  • Mushin Lee & Howard Rosenthal, 1976. "A Behavioral Model of Coalition Formation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 20(4), pages 563-588, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:20:y:1976:i:4:p:563-588
    DOI: 10.1177/002200277602000401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002200277602000401
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/002200277602000401?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Riker, William H. & Zavoina, William James, 1970. "Rational Behavior in Politics: Evidence from a Three Person Game," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(1), pages 48-60, March.
    2. Rosenthal, Howard, 1969. "The Electoral Politics of Gaullists in the Fourth French Republic: Ideology or Constituency Interest?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(2), pages 476-487, June.
    3. Colantoni, Claude S. & Levesque, Terrence J. & Ordeshook, Peter C., 1975. "Campaign Resource Allocations Under the Electoral College," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(1), pages 141-154, March.
    4. Riker, William H., 1967. "Bargaining in a Three-Person Game," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(3), pages 642-656, 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. Michel Le Breton & Karine Van Der Straeten, 2017. "Alliances Électorales et Gouvernementales : La Contribution de la Théorie des Jeux Coopératifs à la Science Politique," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 127(4), pages 637-736.
    2. de Oliveira Amâncio Jorge & Onuki Janina, 2010. "India, Brazil and South Africa: Collective Action, Divergent Positions," New Global Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-25, November.

    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. William P. Bottom & James Holloway & Scott McClurg & Gary J. Miller, 2000. "Negotiating a Coalition," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(2), pages 147-169, April.
    2. Janet E. Berl & Richard D. McKelvey & Peter C. Ordeshook & Mark D. Winer, 1976. "An Experimental Test of the Core in a Simple N-Person Cooperative Nonsidepayment Game," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 20(3), pages 453-479, September.
    3. Rod Garratt & James E. Parco & Cheng-Zhong Qin & Amnon Rapoport, 2005. "Potential Maximization And Coalition Government Formation," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(04), pages 407-429.
    4. Rhode, Paul W. & Snyder, Jr., James M. & Strumpf, Koleman, 2018. "The arsenal of democracy: Production and politics during WWII," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 145-161.
    5. Byron M. Roth, 1979. "Competing Norms of Distribution in Coalition Games," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(3), pages 513-537, September.
    6. Duffy, John & Matros, Alexander, 2017. "Stochastic asymmetric Blotto games: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 88-105.
    7. Alex Robson, 2005. "Multi-Item Contests," ANU Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics 2005-446, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.
    8. Brett R. Gordon & Wesley R. Hartmann, 2016. "Advertising competition in presidential elections," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-40, March.
    9. John Duffy & Alexander Matros, 2013. "Stochastic Asymmetric Blotto Games: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Working Paper 509, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Nov 2013.
    10. Jennifer Merolla & Michael Munger & Michael Tofias, 2005. "In Play: A Commentary on Strategies in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 19-37, April.
    11. T. Edward Westen & James J. Buckley, 1974. "Toward an Explanation of Experimentally Obtained Outcomes to a Simple, Majority Rule Game," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 18(2), pages 198-236, June.
    12. Dan Kovenock & Brian Roberson, 2009. "Is the 50-State Strategy Optimal?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(2), pages 213-236, April.
    13. Scott Macdonell & Nick Mastronardi, 2015. "Waging simple wars: a complete characterization of two-battlefield Blotto equilibria," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 58(1), pages 183-216, January.
    14. Gilbert R. Winham & H. Eugene Bovis, 1979. "Distribution of Benefits In Negotiation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(3), pages 408-424, September.
    15. Cesar Martinelli & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2017. "Communication and Information in Games of Collective Decision: A Survey of Experimental Results," Working Papers 1065, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science.
    16. Abel Fumey, 2018. "Intergovernmental fiscal transfers and tactical political maneuverings: Evidence from Ghana’s District Assemblies Common Fund," WIDER Working Paper Series 031, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    17. Patrick Hummel, 2011. "Proportional versus winner-take-all electoral vote allocations," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 381-393, September.
    18. Jonathan R. Cervas & Bernard Grofman, 2017. "Why noncompetitive states are so important for understanding the outcomes of competitive elections: the Electoral College 1868–2016," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 251-265, December.
    19. Michel Le Breton & Karine Van Der Straeten, 2017. "Alliances Électorales et Gouvernementales : La Contribution de la Théorie des Jeux Coopératifs à la Science Politique," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 127(4), pages 637-736.
    20. John Wright, 2009. "Pivotal states in the Electoral College, 1880 to 2004," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 21-37, April.

    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:sae:jocore:v:20:y:1976:i:4:p:563-588. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.