[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ubi/deawps/85.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Investments, positive externalities and majority bargaining

Author

Listed:
Abstract
This paper analyzes the welfare implications of requiring either unanimity or simple majority in negotiations to distribute a budget among agents who previously can invest to generate positive consumption externalities to others. The present paper studies this setting with simple-majority bargaining, complementing Cardona and Rubí-Barceló (2014), that consider the unanimity case. It is shown that reducing the majority requirement reduces the profitability of investments and, as a consequence, alleviates over-investment, which is predominant under unanimous bargaining. Nevertheless, simple majority reduces the aggregate surplus attained at the bargaining stage. Therefore, the relative performance of the bargaining rules is uncertain. We show how it evolves with respect to the size of consumption externalities.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Cardona & Antoni Rubí-Barceló, 2017. "Investments, positive externalities and majority bargaining," DEA Working Papers 85, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Departament d'Economía Aplicada.
    • Handle: RePEc:ubi:deawps:85
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.uib.es/depart/deaweb/deawp/pdf/w85.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cardona, Daniel & Rubí-Barceló, Antoni, 2014. "Investments and bargaining in a model with positive consumption externalities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 78-93.
    2. Daniel Cardona & Antoni Rubí-Barceló, 2014. "On the efficiency of equilibria in a legislative bargaining model with particularistic and collective goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 345-366, December.
    3. Randall L. Calvert & Nathan Dietz, 2005. "Legislative Coalitions in a Bargaining Model with Externalities," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: David Austen-Smith & John Duggan (ed.), Social Choice and Strategic Decisions, pages 227-247, Springer.
    4. Maria Montero, 2008. "Altruism, Spite and Competition in Bargaining Games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 125-151, September.
    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. Thomas Choate & John A Weymark & Alan E Wiseman, 2020. "Legislative bargaining and partisan delegation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(2), pages 289-311, April.
    2. Cardona, Daniel & Rubí-Barceló, Antoni, 2014. "Investments and bargaining in a model with positive consumption externalities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 78-93.
    3. Thomas Choate & John A Weymark & Alan E Wiseman, 2019. "Partisan strength and legislative bargaining," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(1), pages 6-45, January.
    4. Guha, Brishti, 2018. "Malice in the Rubinstein bargaining game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-86.
    5. Daniel Cardona & Antoni Rubí-Barceló, 2013. "Investments in managerial skills and bargaining over inputs," DEA Working Papers 54, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Departament d'Economía Aplicada.
    6. Jay Simon, 2016. "On the existence of altruistic value and utility functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 371-391, September.
    7. Cho, Seok-ju & Duggan, John, 2009. "Bargaining foundations of the median voter theorem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 851-868, March.
    8. Zhongwei Feng & Chunqiao Tan & Jinchun Zhang & Qiang Zeng, 2021. "Bargaining Game with Altruistic and Spiteful Preferences," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 277-300, April.
    9. Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Lergetporer, Philipp & Sutter, Matthias, 2021. "Collective intertemporal decisions and heterogeneity in groups," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 131-147.
    10. Stefan Kohler & Karl H. Schlag, 2019. "Inequality Aversion Causes Equal Or Unequal Division In Alternating‐Offer Bargaining," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 47-57, January.
    11. Daniel Spiro, 2023. "Economic Warfare," CESifo Working Paper Series 10443, CESifo.
    12. Wladislaw Mill & Jonathan Staebler, 2023. "Spite in Litigation," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_401, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    13. Kohler, Stefan, 2012. "Envy can promote more equal division in alternating-offer bargaining," MPRA Paper 40761, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Guha, Brishti, 2019. "Malice and patience in Rubinstein bargaining," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 264-270.
    15. Serap Elustu, 2021. "Energy Security of the European Union: The Relationship between Energy Import Dependency and Economic Growth," Istanbul Journal of Economics-Istanbul Iktisat Dergisi, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 71(1), pages 133-162, June.
    16. Stefan Kohler, 2014. "Guilt causes equal or unequal division in alternating-offer bargaining," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 34(3), pages 1611-1617.
    17. Smith, Steven M., 2018. "From decentralized to centralized irrigation management," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 62-87.
    18. Eguia, Jon X., 2011. "Voting blocs, party discipline and party formation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 111-135, September.
    19. Zhibing Lin, 2019. "Price and location competition in supply chain with horizontal altruistic retailers," Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 255-278, June.
    20. Zhongwei Feng & Yan Ma & Yuzhong Yang, 2023. "Credibilistic Cournot Game with Risk Aversion under a Fuzzy Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Investments; multilateral bargaining; efficiency; externalities;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ubi:deawps:85. 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: Xisco Oliver (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dauibes.html .

    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.