Public Choice最新文献

Since the early studies of Olson (The logic of collective action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1971/1965) and Tullock (Public Choice 11:89–99, 1971), who first defined the paradox of revolution, there has been a great deal of relevant work based on rational choice theory. While the main point of this research is to investigate solutions to this apparent paradox, its overall contribution is the provision of a rich analysis of revolutions in the light of rational choice. This article provides an overview of the literature over the last fifty years, highlighting the richness and complexity of the issues underlying the paradox and, more generally, collective action. The emphasis is placed on the salient points of what this literature and its evolution teach us about revolutionary commitment.

The public choice literature has long considered the political economy of environmental regulation and has examined a variety of national and subnational governments’ environmental policies aimed at adaption to climate change. However, there has been little attention paid to the determinants of environmental adaptive actions taken by indigenous governments. Given many indigenous peoples’ heightened vulnerability to issues caused by climate change, it is important to understand when and why they take action to adapt to climate change and what obstacles may stand in the way. I argue that natural resource abundance, informational resource access, population vulnerability, and reliance on natural resources will impact whether indigenous governments enact policies to respond to climate change. Using an original dataset of tribal actions addressing climate change for 574 federally recognized tribal governments, I find that the amount of land, educational attainment, broadband access, and proportion of tribal members working in the natural resource industries are positively associated with the tribal government’s responses to climate change.

Electing a committee of size k from m candidates ((k < m)) is an interesting problem under multi-winner voting situations. In this paper, we propose a new committee selection rule based on cooperative game theoretic tools, where voters can approve both individuals and groups of candidates simultaneously. This flexibility of approving groups of candidates allows the voters to assess the candidates’ compatibility to work in a group. In many situations, the k-elected candidates have no particular status as a group and voters in such multi-winner elections are presumably concerned about the personal qualities of the candidates. However, many committees function in unison and therefore, their productivity also depends on the compatibility of the members to accomplish a task together. We assume that the voters have prior beliefs about this compatibility. The profile of summed approval votes constitutes the characteristic function of a cooperative game. The Shapley value of this game is calculated to measure the candidates’ expected marginal contributions in accomplishing the group task as perceived by the voters. The top k-ranked candidates prescribed by the Shapley value are selected to form the desired committee. The Shapley value as a committee selection rule is characterized by a set of intuitive axioms. We explore several properties of the committee selection rule.

We propose and theoretically analyze a measure to encourage greater voluntary contributions to public goods. Our measure is a simple intervention that restricts individuals’ strategy sets by imposing a minimum individual contribution level while still allowing for full free riding for those who do not want to contribute. We show that for a well-chosen value of the minimum individual contribution level, this measure does not incentivize any additional free riding while strictly increasing the total contributions relative to the situation without the minimum contribution level. Our measure is appealing because it is nonintrusive and in line with the principle of “freedom of choice.” It is easily implementable for many different public goods settings where more intrusive measures are less accepted. This approach has been implemented in practice in some applications, such as charities.

Social distance is known to impact interpersonal behaviors. We examine the potential consequences of mandated masking, which increases social distance, on social behavior. A controlled laboratory experiment was conducted to systematically impose a mask mandate in the treatment group, and to measure how this mandate affected other-regarding behavior within various social interactions. We find that behavior in the mandatory masking condition is less other-regarding compared to the control group with zero mask wearing. Particularly, we document less altruism, more sabotaging, and less cooperation. Our result suggests that mandatory masking has the potential to have broad behavioral consequences in the form of people generally becoming more selfish. Our results are found to be more pronounced among females than males.

We propose a model of attentiveness in elections with impressionable voters under three electoral rules: plurality, approval voting, and negative plurality. Voters’ conduct is determined by their attentiveness and impressions of candidates. We show that attentiveness is as important as voters’ preferences for the outcome of the election. Specifically, we show that candidates benefit from increased voter attention under all rules other than negative plurality. We then consider exogenous and endogenous attentiveness and show how our model can account for momentum effects in primaries, where candidates rise quickly and then fade away. Finally we consider the case of news coverage tone and show that under plurality rule e.g., primary elections, candidates may benefit from frequent news coverage even if the news is negative.

This paper evaluates three prominent voting systems: the Majority Rule (MR), Borda Rule (BR), and Plurality Rule (PR). Our analysis centers on the susceptibilities of each system to potential transgressions of two foundational principles: the respect for majority preference (majoritarianism) and the acknowledgment of the intensity of individual preferences. We operationalize the concept of 'cost' as the expected deviation from the aforementioned principles. A comparative assessment of MR, BR, and PR is undertaken in terms of their costs. Our findings underscore the superiority of PR over MR, whilst also highlighting the comparative advantage of MR against BR.

In this article we study whether an elected leader has incentives to withdraw from an ongoing military conflict before elections take place. Remaining active in the conflict increases the chances of a victory, which would boost the political incumbent’s reelection probability. On the other hand, if the rival does not surrender, then the incumbent politician’s reelection probability decreases because of the costly conflict citizens have to endure. We show that when the crisis is costly to voters, the more distant the elections are, the more likely the ruling government withdraws from an ongoing war early. For low-cost conflicts, politicians never give up the fighting. We also show that confrontations in the shadow of elections are socially inefficient (too long or too short) because of the inherent misalignment of preferences between citizens and politicians.

Abstract

Using newly collected data on ties between local politicians in Italy from 1985 onwards, this paper studies the relation between cross-party connections and future career prospects. Exploiting a difference-in-discontinuities design, I find that ruling coalition members connected with the leader of the opposition in local councils are twice as likely to be promoted to the local government. The results are confirmed with a number of placebo exercises. Interestingly, the effect of connections with the leader of the rivals disappears when I consider appointments to boards of state-owned enterprises or to other councils in which the party faces different politicians as opponents. A possible mechanism that may account for these results is that connected politicians act as political brokers and smooth the relationship between government and opposition. Finally, connected politicians are less educated than the average appointed official, indicating that political selection is negatively affected (Besley et al. in Econ J 121(554):F205–F227, 2011).

Abstract

Plurality rule uniquely satisfies anonymity, monotonicity, neutrality, and tops-onlyness. However, it is not always able to produce resolute outcomes. We study singleton-valued refinements of plurality rule that satisfy all but one of these four axioms. Monotonicity is preserved by all refinements of plurality, whereas no refinement satisfies the remaining three except for a very limited case. We explore what dropping one of the three remaining axioms brings about towards singleton-valued refinements.