Pork Versus Public Goods: An Experimental Study of Public Good Provision Within a Legislative Bargaining Framework

We experimentally investigate a legislative bargaining model with both public and particularistic goods. Consistent with the qualitative implications of the model: There is near exclusive public good provision in the pure public good region, in the pure private good region minimum winning coalitions sharing private goods predominate, and in the ‘mixed’ region proposers generally take some particularistic goods for themselves, allocating the remainder to public goods. As in past experiments, proposer ower is not nearly as strong as predicted, resulting in public good provision decreasing in the mixed region as its relative value increases, which is inconsistent with the theory.Legislative Bargaining, Public Goods, Efficiency

Bargaining in Legislatures: An Experimental Investigation of Open versus Closed Amendment Rules

We investigate the Baron and Ferejohn (1989) noncooperative game theoretic bargaining model of legislative equilibrium. Legislative outcomes are sensitive to formal rules specifying who may make proposals and how they will be voted on. With a random proposal recognition rule and a closed amendment rule (proposals are voted up or down with no room for amendments) the model predicts no delays in benefit allocation, that benefits will be allocated to a minimal winning coalition, and that benefits within the coalition will be strongly skewed in favor of the proposer. In contrast, with a random proposal recognition rule and an open amendment rule (proposals may be amended before they are voted on) the model predicts delays in benefit allocation, that benefits will be more evenly spread among winning coalition members, and that coalitions need not be restricted to a minimal majority. With experience we find strong qualitative support for the model's predictions: All proposals are passed without delay with the closed rule versus 81% of all proposals with the open rule. Minimal winning coalitions are effectively proposed in 67% of all cases with the closed rule versus 4% with the open rule, and benefits are more evenly distributed with open rule. Quantitative predictions of the model fail however: Most importantly, proposers consistently fail to allocate themselves anything close to what the theory predicts. Further, the probability of immediate acceptance is much higher than predicted in the open rule as proposers consistently expand the winning coalition beyond the model's prediction in attempts to limit amendments. The evolution of play over time is reported (outcomes under both treatments are much more similar early on then later). Tests show that subjects' votes in favor of a proposed allocation are significantly affected by their own share (in the expected direction) but that the distribution of shares across all voters has no significant effect.

Pork Versus Public Goods: An Experimental Study of Public Good Provision Within a Legislative Bargaining Framework

We experimentally investigate a legislative bargaining model with both public and particularistic goods. Consistent with the qualitative implications of the model: there is near exclusive public good provision in the pure public good region, in the pure private good region minimum winning coalitions sharing private goods predominate, and in the "mixed" region proposers generally take some particularistic goods for themselves, allocating the remainder to public goods. As in past experiments, proposer power is not nearly as strong as predicted, resulting in public good provision decreasing in the mixed region as its relative value increases, which is inconsistent with the theory

A failure to communicate: an experimental investigation of the effects of advice on strategic play

We investigate why two person teams beat the truth wins benchmark in signaling games (Cooper and Kagel, 2005, 2009) by studying an advice treatment where advisees have the benefit of two individuals׳ insight but not bilateral communication. The TW benchmark states that the performance of a team for problems with a demonstrable correct solution should be no worse than the performance of its most able individual. If one individual solves the problem, the team solves it as well. Advisees whose advisors play strategically have significantly higher levels of strategic play, but fall well short of the truth wins benchmark as (i) many advisors who play strategically do not provide advice to this effect, and (ii) many advisees fail to follow sound advice. Effect (i) is largely attributable to female advisors who are far less likely to provide advice than men. Whether or not advice contains a clear explanation for its effectiveness has no effect on the likelihood of advisees’ strategic play, a result at odds with the idea that economic agents regularly consider all the available alternatives