Suchergebnisse

Defence date: 22 November 2013 ; This thesis is a collection of three essays on voting as a means of collective decision- making. The first chapter builds a model of how voters should optimally behave in a legislative election with three parties under plurality rule. I show that, in contrast to single district elections, properties such as polarisation and misaligned voting can be mitigated in legislative elections. The second chapter studies a model of committee decision making where members have career concerns and a principal can choose the level of transparency (how much of the committees decision he can observe). We show that increased transparency leads to a breakdown in information aggregation, but that this may actually increase the principal's payoff. The theoretical model is then tested in a laboratory experiment. The final chapter introduces a model of legislative bargaining where three parties in the legislature bargain over the formation of government by choosing a policy and a distribution of government perks. I show that when individual politicians are responsible for the policies they implement - that is, those outside of government are not held accountable by voters for the implemented governments policies, while each individual politician in the ruling coalition is - then a given seat distribution can result in almost any two party coalition. ; -- Voting in legislative elections under plurality rule -- How transparency kills information aggregation (and why that may be good) -- Legislative bargaining with accountability

THIS STUDY TESTS THE INFLUENCE OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON LEGISLATIVE DECISION MAKING BY EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF TORT REFORM IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE. LEGISLATORS WERE SURVEYED TO FIND OUT WHETHER THEIR SOURCES OF INFORMATION INCLUDED A RECENT REPORT ON THAT COMPLEX ISSUE AND WHETHER THEY WERE FAMILIAR WITH ITS FINDINGS. MOST LEGISLATORS WERE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE REPORT AND ITS FINDINGS BUT RELIED HEAVILY ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES, WHOSE MEMBERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE RESEARCH REPORT AND AWARE OF ITS FINDINGS. THESE RESULTS SUGGEST THAT STUDY OF LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION SOURCES SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TWO-STEP FLOW OF INFORMATION AND DEFERENCE TO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is one of several federal agencies responsible for protecting Americans against significant risks to human health and the environment. As part of that mission, EPA estimates the nature, magnitude, and likelihood of risks to human health and the environment; identifies the potential regulatory actions that will mitigate those risks and protect public health1 and the environment; and uses that information to decide on appropriate regulatory action. Uncertainties, both qualitative and quantitative, in the data and analyses on which these decisions are based enter into the process at each step. As a result, the informed identification and use of the uncertainties inherent in the process is an essential feature of environmental decision making. EPA requested that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) convene a committee to provide guidance to its decision makers and their partners in states and localities on approaches to managing risk in different contexts when uncertainty is present. It also sought guidance on how information on uncertainty should be presented to help risk managers make sound decisions and to increase transparency in its communications with the public about those decisions. Given that its charge is not limited to human health risk assessment and includes broad questions about managing risks and decision making, in this report the committee examines the analysis of uncertainty in those other areas in addition to human health risks. Environmental Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty explains the statement of task and summarizes the findings of the committee."--Publisher's description

As an advisory body the Committee of Regions' influence on policy making in the EU depends on its ability to structure internal decision making according to major lines of conflict. Given its heterogeneous composition, which cleavages do exist & what effects do collective actors & institutional rules have? Based on quantitative analysis of decisions & qualitative interpretation of interviews we find a low level of conflict. Where conflict exists this is overwhelmingly structured by a national cleavage with the partisan cleavage being a distant second factor. The relevance of cleavages varies depending on policy areas & the organizational capabilities of parties & national delegations as collective actors. 4 Tables, 4 Figures, 47 References. Adapted from the source document.

We investigate the implications for the setting of interest rateswhen monetary policy decisions are taken by a committee, in whicha subset of members may meet prior to the voting in the committeeand therefore has the possibility to reach consensus ex ante to voteunanimously ex post. We allow for different committee sizes, variousvoting rules and differences in skills among committee members. Wefind that the size of the committee is much less important in deter-mining the degree of interest rate inertia than the skills of committeemembers. Moreover, prior interaction of a subgroup only has a minoreffect on the setting of interest rates by the committee, provided thatmembers on average are equally skilled and voting takes place using asimple majority rule. If either of those assumptions are relaxed, priorinteraction has substantial effects on the setting of interest rates. Inaddition, prior interaction increases the optimal size of the Committee,ceteris paribus.

This article reports the findings of a series of experiments on committee decision making under majority rule. The committee members had relatively fixed preferences, so that the process was one of making decisions rather than one of problem solving. The predictions of a variety of models drawn from Economics, Sociology, Political Science and Game Theory were compared to the experimental results. One predictive concept, the core of the noncooperative game without side payments (equivalent to the majority rule equilibrium) consistently performed best. Significantly, however, even when such an outcome did not exist, the experimental results did not display the degree of unpredictability that some theoretical work would suggest. An important subsidiary finding concerns the difference between experiments conducted under conditions of high stakes versus those conducted under conditions of much lower stakes. The findings in the two conditions differed considerably, thus calling into question the political applicability of numerous social psychological experiments in which subjects had little or no motivation.