Let the Experts Decide? Asymmetric Information, Abstention, and Coordination in Standing Committees

We examine abstention when voters in standing committees are asymmetrically informed and there are multiple pure strategy equilibria-swing voter's curse (SVC) equilibria where voters with low quality information abstain and equilibria when all participants vote their information. When the asymmetry in information quality is large, we find that voting groups largely coordinate on the SVC equilibrium which is also Pareto Optimal. However, we find that when the asymmetry in information quality is not large and the Pareto Optimal equilibrium is for all to participate, significant numbers of voters with low quality information abstain. Furthermore, we find that information asymmetry induces voters with low quality information to coordinate on a non-equilibrium outcome. This suggests that coordination on "letting the experts" decide is a likely voting norm that sometimes validates SVC equilibrium predictions but other times does not.

Against all odds: Tentative steps toward efficient information sharing in groups

When groups face difficult problems, the voices of experts may be lost in the noise of others’ contributions. We present results from a “naturally noisy” setting, a large first-year undergraduate class, in which the expert’s voice was “lost” to such a degree that bringing forward even more inferior information was optimal. A single individual had little chance to improve the outcome and coordinating with the whole group was impossible. In this setting, we examined the change in behavior before and after people could talk to their neighbors. We found that the number of people who reduced noise by holding back their information strongly and significantly increased

Essays on strategic voting and political influence

Chapter 1 : I attempt a detailed literature review on the passage from the probabilistic versions of the Condorcet Jury Theorem to models augmented by the concept of strategic agents, including both theoretical and relevant empirical work. In the first part, I explore the most influential relevant game theoretic models and their main predictions. In the second part, I review what voting experiments have to say about these predictions, with a brief mention of the experiments' key methodological aspects. In the final part, I provide with an attempt to map the recent strategic voting literature in terms of structure and scope. I close with a philosophical question on the exogeneity of a "correct" choice of a voting outcome, which is inherent in the current strategic voting literature. Chapter 2 : I develop a two stage game with individually costly political action and costless voting on a binary agenda where, in equilibrium, agents rationally cast honest votes in the voting stage. I show that a positive but sufficiently low individual cost of political action can lead to a loss in aggregate welfare for any electorate size. When the individual cost of political action is lower than the signalling gain, agents will engage in informative political action. In the voting stage, since everyone's signal is revealed, agents will unanimously vote for the same policy. Therefore, the result of the ballot will be exactly the same as the one without prior communication, but with the additional aggregate cost of political action. However, when agents have heterogeneous prior beliefs, society is large and the state of the world is sufficiently uncertain, a moderate individual cost of political action can induce informative collective action of only a subset of the members of society, which increases ex ante aggregate welfare relative to no political action. The size of the subset of agents engaging in collective action depends on the dispersion of prior opinions. Chapter 3 : This chapter shows theoretically that hearing expert opinions can be a double-edged sword for decision making committees. We study a majoritarian voting game of common interest where committee members receive not only private information, but also expert information that is more accurate than private information and observed by all members. We identify three types of equilibria of interest, namely i) the symmetric mixed strategy equilibrium where each member randomizes between following the private and public signals should they disagree; ii) the asymmetric pure strategy equilibrium where a certain number of members always follow the public signal while the others always follow the private signal; and iii) a class of equilibria where a supermajority and hence the committee decision always follow the expert signal. We find that in the first two equilibria, the expert signal is collectively taken into account in such a way that it enhances the efficiency (accuracy) of the committee decision, and a fortiori the CJT holds. However, in the third type of equilibria, private information is not reflected in the committee decision and the efficiency of committee decision is identical to that of public information, which may well be lower than the efficiency the committee could achieve without expert information. In other words, the introduction of expert information might reduce efficiency in equilibrium. Chapter 4 : In this chapter we present experimental results on the theory of the previous chapter. In the laboratory, too many subjects voted according to expert information compared to the predictions from the efficient equilibria. The majority decisions followed the expert signal most of the time, which is consistent with the class of obedient equilibria mentioned in the previous chapter. Another interesting finding is the marked heterogeneity in voting behaviour. We argue that the voters' behaviour in our data can be best described as that in an obedient equilibrium where a supermajority (and hence the decision) always follow the expert signal so that no voter is pivotal. A large efficiency loss manifests due to the presence of expert information when the committee size was large. We suggest that it may be desirable for expert information to be revealed only to a subset of committee members. Finally, in the Appendix we describe a new alternative method for producing the signal matrix of the game. Chapter 5 : There is a significant gap between the theoretical predictions and the empirical evidence about the efficiency of policies in reducing crime rates. This chapter argues that one important reason for this is that the current literature of economics of crime overlooks an important hysteresis effect in criminal behaviour. One important consequence of hysteresis is that the effect on an outcome variable from positive exogenous variations in the determining variables has a different magnitude from negative variations. We present a simple model that characterises hysteresis in both the micro and macro levels. When the probability of punishment decreases, some law abiding agents will find it more beneficial to enter a criminal career. If the probability of punishment returns to its original level, a subset of these agents will continue with their career in crime. We show that, when crime choice exhibits weak hysteresis at the individual level, crime rate in a society consisted from a continuum of agents that follows any non-uniform distribution will exhibit strong hysteresis. Only when punishment is extremely severe the effect of hysteresis ceases to exist. The theoretical predictions corroborate the argument that policy makers should be more inclined to set pre-emptive policies rather than mitigating measures

Common value elections with private information and informative priors: Theory and experiments

© 2017 Elsevier Inc. We study efficiency and information aggregation in common value elections with contin-uous private signals and informative priors. We show that small elections are not generally efficient and that there are equilibria where some voters vote against their private signal even if it provides useful information and abstention is allowed. This is not the case in large elections, where the fraction of voters who vote against their private signal tends to zero. In an experiment, we then study how informativeness of priors and private signals impact efficiency and information aggregation in small elections. We find that there is a substantial amount of voting against the private signal. Moreover, while most experimental elections are efficient, we find that it is not generally the case that better private information leads to better decisions

Experimental evidence that quorum rules discourage turnout and promote election boycotts

NIPE WP-14/2013In most instances of collective decision-making, it cannot be expected that all persons who are entitled to vote will end up doing so. This has led institutional designers, out of concerns with the “legitimacy” of decisions, to introduce quorum requirements. A prominent example of this can be found in the context of direct democracy mechanisms, such as referenda and initiatives. We discuss the results of an experiment about the consequences of such quora. We show that quora lead to overall decreases in participation rates, dramatically increasing the likelihood of full-fledged electoral boycotts on the part of status quo supporters.COMPETE;QREN;FEDER; Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT

Expert information and majority decisions

This paper shows theoretically and experimentally that hearing expert opinions can be a double-edged sword for decision making committees. We study a majoritarian voting game of common interest where committee members receive not only private information, but also expert information that is more accurate than private information and observed by all members. In theory, there are Bayesian Nash equilibria where the committee members ’ voting strategy incorporates both types of information and access to expert information enhances the efficiency of the majority decision. However, there is a class of potentially inefficient equilibria where a supermajority always follow expert information and the majority decision does not aggregate private information. In the laboratory, too many subjects voted according to expert information compared to the predictions from the efficient equilibria. We found a large efficiency loss due to the presence of expert information when the committee size was large. We suggest that it may be desirable for expert information to be revealed only to a subset of committee members