Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T02:45:23.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Confederation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Jacques Crémer  and
Thomas R. Palfrey
Jacques Crémer
Affiliation:
Université des Sciences Sociales de Toulouse
Thomas R. Palfrey
Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article extends the spatial model of voting to study the implications of different institutional structures of federalism along two dimensions: degree of centralization and mode of representation. The representation dimension varies the weight between unit representation (one state, one vote) and population-proportional representation (one person, one vote). Voters have incomplete information and can reduce policy risk by increasing the degree of centralization or increasing the weight on unit representation. We derive induced preferences over the degree of centralization and the relative weights of the two modes of representation, and we study the properties of majority rule voting over these two basic dimensions of federalism. Moderates prefer more centralization than extremists, and voters in large states generally have different preferences from voters in small states. This implies two main axes of conflict in decisions concerning political confederation: moderates versus extremists and large versus small states.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 93 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 69 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alesina, Alberto, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1995. Partisan Politics, Divided Government, and the Economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey S., and Duggan, John. 1998. “Stationary Equilibria in a Bargaining Model of Social Choice.” Working Paper. California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Baron, David P., and Ferejohn, John. 1989. “Bargaining in Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 83(12):1181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coughlin, Peter. 1990. Probabilistic Voting Models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crémer, Jacques, and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 1996. “In or Out?: Centralization by Majority Vote.” European Economic Review 40(1):43–60.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, and Wittman, Donald. 1989. The Federalist Papers and the New Institutionalism. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin. 1978. “The Mean vs. the Median in Spatial Voting Games.” In Game Theory and Political Science, ed. Ordeshook, Peter. New York: New York University Press. Pp. 357–74.Google Scholar
Madison, James, Hamilton, Alexander, and Jay, John. [1788] 1937. The Federalist Papers. Modern Library Edition. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Ledyard, John. 1984. “The Pure Theory of Large Two-Candidate Elections.” Public Choice 44(1):7–41.Google Scholar
Merlo, Antonio. 1997. “Bargaining over Governments in a Stochastic Environment.” Journal of Political Economy 105(l):101–31.Google Scholar
Riker, William. 1984. “The Heresthetics of Constitution-Making: The Presidency in 1787, with Comments on Determinism and Rational Choice.” American Political Science Review 78(03):1–16.Google Scholar
Riker, William. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George, and Money, Jeannette. 1997. Bicameralism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar