Suchergebnisse

The game theoretic study of coalitions focuses on settings in which commitment technologies are available to allow groups to coordinate their actions. Analyses of such settings focus on two questions. First, what are the implications of the ability to make commitments and form coalitions for how games are played? Second given that coalitions can form, which coalitions should we expect to see forming? I examine classic cooperative and new noncooperative game theoretic approaches to answering these questions. Classic approaches have focused especially on the first question and have produced powerful results. However, these approaches suffer from a number of weaknesses. New work attempts to address these shortcomings by modeling coalition formation as an explicitly noncooperative process. This new research reintroduces the problem of coalitional instability characteristic of cooperative approaches, but in a dynamic setting. Although in some settings, classic solutions are recovered, in others this new work shows that outcomes are highly sensitive not only to bargaining protocols, but also to the forms of commitment that can be externally enforced. This point of variation is largely ignored in empirical research on coalition formation. I close by describing new agendas in coalitional analysis that are being opened up by this new approach. Adapted from the source document.

While widely applied to political coalitions in national assemblies and cabinets, theories of coalition formation have seldom been tested at the local level of government. This article presents a model of coalition formation in connection with mayoral elections in Norwegian local councils and tests it on the basis of the first systematic collection of data on the election of mayors from a large number of municipalities. It finds small significant effects on the probability that oversized coalitions will be formed. Contrary to "common" knowledge, the size of a municipality has a positive influence on the conflictual climate, and thus on the size of the coalitions formed, which implies that the probability that an oversized coalition will form is higher in a large than in a small municipality. It also finds that the possibility that an oversized coalition will form increases if one party controls a majority of the councilors on its own, and if the majority is non‐socialistically controlled. The assumption of a strong norm for reaching consensus‐based decisions, reinforced by the design of the local political institutions, is supported.

The necessity of forming coalitions is inevitable in a large, diverse nation in which political power is fragmented both vertically & horizontally. Presidents invest substantial time & effort building supporting coalitions for themselves & their polices among the public & within Congress. The author explores the president's ability to build coalitions, examines the relationship between the institutional presidency & obstacles to coalition building, & inquires whether the presidency as an institution is adequate to the task of building the coalitions necessary for governing. He concludes that (1) the president has great difficulty building coalitions for governing among the public & within Congress; (2) the institutional structure of the presidency (& Congress) is at the core of the difficulty of building coalitions in Congress but does not inhibit obtaining public support; & (3) the changes required to notably improve presidential coalition building are so fundamental that they are unlikely to occur. 3 Tables, 128 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author compares the trajectories of three U.S. policies from 1935 to 1952: the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and the Social Security Act (SSA). Agricultural policy expanded beyond the New Deal, labor policy was severely weakened, and social security saw only minor changes. Why? Class coalitions strongly influenced the trajectories of these policies. The coalition supporting the AAA largely maintained, but the coalition supporting the NLRA collapsed. Support from southern planters was particularly important for each policy. Focusing on trajectories rather than merely policy formation more clearly demonstrates the influence of class coalitions over state policy.

AbstractFrom 1987 to 1998, the Basque government was made up of a coalition between Basque nationalists and unionists. However, there are doubts about whether this experience has a consociational character. In order to clarify this, the article analyses the four characteristics of Lijphart's scheme, focussing on the degree of power‐sharing of the Basque governments using the qualitative distinction of McGarry and O'Leary and the centripetal approach, creating the power‐sharing in government index and studying the degree of ideological proximity of the parties making up the coalition. The conclusions are that in the Basque case, there were no complete or concurrent consociational governments, but instead, there were centripetal coalitions. Furthermore, it makes clear that an electoral system with high proportionality is an obstacle when it comes to maintaining cross‐segment governments in societies that lack stability in the correlation of forces among segments and use centripetal power‐sharing coalitions or weak or concurrent consotiational coalitions. The most realistic choice in order to preserve the power‐sharing government would be adopting a proportional sequential coalition and a proportional electoral system with significative electoral threshold to avoid the emergence of anti‐consociational parties.

Formal coalition theory has tended to ignore the existence of local government coalitions. Local government studies have tended to ignore the existence of formal coalition theory. Yet local administrations frequently comprise coalitions of parties. There is clearly a need, therefore, to bring the two areas of study together.