Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bt4hw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T01:07:20.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institution design and public good provision: an experimental study of the vote of confidence procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Chloe Tergiman
Chloe Tergiman*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia and NYU’s Center for Experimental and Social Sciences, Vancouver, Canada
*
chloejt@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Parliamentary democracies use the vote of confidence procedure, which links the survival of a government with that of a bill, in order to discipline members of the majority. In this paper I investigate the role that the vote of confidence procedure has on public good provision and show that it has unintended negative consequences: even when efficient, public goods may be turned down in favor of earmarked projects. I use a laboratory experiment to test my model and show that the increase in voting cohesion comes at the cost of a 23 % reduction in public good provision and more unequal earmarking.

Keywords

Multilateral legislative bargainingVote of confidence procedureProposer power

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 697 - 717
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Economic Science Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-014-9423-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Agranov, M, & Tergiman, C (2014). Communication in multilateral bargaining. Journal of Public Economics, 118, 75–85. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agranov, M., & Tergiman, C. (2015). Transparency versus backroom deals in bargaining, Working Paper.Google Scholar
Baron, DP, & Ferejohn, JA (1989). Bargaining in legislatures. The American Political Science Review, 83(4), 1181–1206. 10.2307/1961664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battaglini, M, & Nunnari, S (2012). Political institutions and the dynamics of public investment. American Political Science Review, 106(2), 407–429. 10.1017/S0003055412000160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battaglini, M, & Palfrey, TR (2012). The dynamics of redistributive politics. Economic Theory, 49(3), 739–777 1277.91045 2903687 10.1007/s00199-011-0612-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becher, M., & Christiansen, F. J. (2014). Dissolution threats and legislative bargaining, Working Paper.Google Scholar
Becker, GM, DeGroot, MH, & Marschak, J (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9, 226–236 1:STN:280:DyaF1c7lvVemsA%3D%3D 10.1002/bs.3830090304 5888778Google ScholarPubMed
Diermeier, D, & Feddersen, T (1998). Cohesion in legislature and the vote of confidence procedure. The American Political Science Review, 92(3), 611–621. 10.2307/2585484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diermeier, D, Morton, R Austen-Smith, D, & Duggan, J (2004). Proportionality versus perfectness: Experiments in majoritarian bargaining. Social choice and strategic behavior: Essays in the honor of Jeffrey S. Banks, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Diermeier, D, Merlo, A, & Eraslan, H (2003). A structural model of government formation. Econometrica, 71(1), 27–70 1184.91188 10.1111/1468-0262.00389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, LD (1964). A comparative study of Canadian parties. American Political Science Review, 57(March), 46–59. 10.2307/1952754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frechette, G, Kagel, J, & Massimo, M (2012). Pork versus public goods: An experimental study of public good provision within a legislative bargaining framework. Economic Theory, 49(3), 779–800 1277.91033 2903688 10.1007/s00199-011-0611-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, TW, & Krehbiel, K (1987). Collective decision-making and standing committees: An informational rationale for restrictive amendment procedures. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3(August), 287–335.Google Scholar
Huber, JD (1996). The vote of confidence in parliamentary democracies. The American Political Science Review, 90(2), 269–282. 10.2307/2082884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lizzeri, A, & Persico, N (2001). The provision of public goods under alternative electoral incentives. The American Economic Review, 91(1), 225–239. 10.1257/aer.91.1.225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, RD, & Palfrey, TR (1991). An experimental test of a stochastic game model of committee bargaining. Contemporary laboratory research in political economy, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
McKelvey, RD, & Palfrey, T (1998). Quantile response equilibria for extensive form games. Experimental Economics, 1(1), 9–41 0920.90141 10.1023/A:1009905800005Google Scholar
Norman, P (2002). Legislative bargaining and coalition formation. Journal of Economic Theory, 102(2), 322–353 1039.91005 1883890 10.1006/jeth.2001.2846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunnari, S., & Zapal, J. (2013) Quantile response equilibrium and gambler’s fallacy explain suboptimal behavior in bargaining experiments, Working Paper.Google Scholar
Volden, C., & Wiseman, A. E. (2007). Bargaining in legislatures over particularistic and colletive goods. Paper presented at the 76th annual meetings of the southern political science association, January 5–9, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Tergiman supplementary material

Appendix 1-7
Download Tergiman supplementary material(File)
File 1.8 MB