Endowment Effects in Proposal Rights Contests

Youjin Hahn, Chulyoung Kim, Sang‐Hyun Kim
{"title":"Endowment Effects in Proposal Rights Contests","authors":"Youjin Hahn, Chulyoung Kim, Sang‐Hyun Kim","doi":"10.1628/jite-2021-0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When parties negotiate over surplus, incumbents, or agenda-setters, tend to spend more resources than challengers to keep their power in making a proposal. This is often attributed to the fact that incumbents usually have better access to resources. We experimentally investigate whether incumbents spend more resources even when they have no advantage. Specifically, we consider a twostage game where in the first stage, players compete to be recognized as a proposer, and in the second stage, they play an ultimatum bargaining game. Our treatment concerns whether one of the subjects is endowed with proposal right (without any material advantage) in the beginning of the game. We find that subjects who were framed to be incumbents spent significantly more resources to keep the proposal right than others. This suggests that even without any resource advantage, the parties who have the power would incur higher costs to keep it, and thus, the allocation of power is likely to persist. Our finding is new in the sense that the endowment effect does not concern “property right†as in previous studies but “proposal right.â€","PeriodicalId":46932,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics-Zeitschrift Fur Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics-Zeitschrift Fur Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1628/jite-2021-0018","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

When parties negotiate over surplus, incumbents, or agenda-setters, tend to spend more resources than challengers to keep their power in making a proposal. This is often attributed to the fact that incumbents usually have better access to resources. We experimentally investigate whether incumbents spend more resources even when they have no advantage. Specifically, we consider a twostage game where in the first stage, players compete to be recognized as a proposer, and in the second stage, they play an ultimatum bargaining game. Our treatment concerns whether one of the subjects is endowed with proposal right (without any material advantage) in the beginning of the game. We find that subjects who were framed to be incumbents spent significantly more resources to keep the proposal right than others. This suggests that even without any resource advantage, the parties who have the power would incur higher costs to keep it, and thus, the allocation of power is likely to persist. Our finding is new in the sense that the endowment effect does not concern “property right†as in previous studies but “proposal right.â€
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求婚权争夺中的赠与效应
当政党就盈余进行谈判时,现任者或议程制定者往往比挑战者花费更多的资源来保持他们在提案中的权力。这通常归因于现任者通常能够更好地获得资源。我们通过实验研究在职者是否在没有优势的情况下花费更多的资源。具体来说,我们考虑一个两阶段的游戏,在第一阶段,玩家竞争被认可为提议者,在第二阶段,他们玩最后通牒讨价还价游戏。我们的处理涉及在游戏开始时,其中一名受试者是否被赋予了求婚权(没有任何物质优势)。我们发现,与其他人相比,被认为是现任者的受试者花费了更多的资源来保持提案的正确性。这表明,即使没有任何资源优势,拥有权力的各方也会承担更高的成本来维持权力,因此,权力分配可能会持续下去。我们的发现是新的,因为捐赠效应与先前研究中的“财产权”无关,而是与“提案权”有关
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊最新文献
Learning the Law Together: Judges, Litigants, and Case-by-Case Adjudication Learning the Law Together: Judges, Litigants, and Case-by-Case Adjudication Bias in Choice of Law: New Empirical and Experimental Evidence Plaintiff Favoritism in Judicial Cost-Shifting Decisions Is Choice of Law Biased? How Would we Know?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1