Pork-barrel politics, discriminatory policies and fiscal federalism

This paper examines the role of discriminatory policy tools in a model of redistributive politics with jurisdictional specific projects. In equilibrium, the ability to tactically target both jurisdictional specific projects, with benefits concentrated within a given jurisdiction, and the costs associated with those projects across multiple jurisdictions, leads to inefficiency in the provision of the “local” projects. In particular, politically motivated discrimination in the provision of local projects and/or their associated costs results in the foregoing of efficient projects. However, greater discriminatory ability in the set of available policies lowers the level of inefficiency in the provision of the local projects. -- Dieser Aufsatz untersucht in einem Modell umverteilender Politik die Rolle von lokalen öffentlichen Gütern und öffentlichen Projekten in einzelnen Jurisdiktionen. Politiker können aus strategischen Gründen bestimmte lokale Projekte durchführen und dadurch gezielt bestimmte Gebietskörperschaften beeinflussen, welche die Vorteile dieser Projekte genießen, während die damit verbundenen Kosten von mehreren Jurisdiktionen getragen werden. Dies führt zu einer Ineffizienz in der Durchführung solcher lokalen Projekte. Insbesondere führt eine politisch motivierte Ungleichbehandlung verschiedener Gebietskörperschaften bei der Durchführung lokaler Projekte bzw. ihrer Finanzierung dazu, dass manche effizienten Projekte nicht durchgeführt werden. Allerdings geht diese Ineffizienz zurück, wenn es größere Möglichkeiten zu ungleicher Behandlungen verschiedener Jurisdiktionen gibt.Fiscal Federalism,redistributive politics,distributive politics,Colonel Blotto

The Non-Constant-Sum Colonel Blotto Game

The Colonel Blotto game is a two-player constant-sum game in which each player simultaneously distributes his fixed level of resources across a set of contests. In the traditional formulation of the Colonel Blotto game, the players’ resources are “use it or lose it” in the sense that any resources which are not allocated to one of the contests are forfeited. This article examines a non-constant-sum version of the Colonel Blotto game which relaxes this use it or lose it feature. We find that if the level of asymmetry between the players’ budgets is below a threshold, then there exists a oneto- one mapping from the unique set of equilibrium univariate marginal distribution functions in the constant-sum game to those in the non-constant-sum game. Once the asymmetry of the players’ budgets exceeds the threshold this relationship breaks down and we construct a new equilibrium.Colonel Blotto Game, All-Pay Auction, Contests, Mixed Strategies

Inefficient redistribution and inefficient redistributive politics

This paper examines the effect of inefficient redistribution in Myerson’s (1993) model of redistributive politics. Regardless of the absolute levels of the efficiency of political parties’ transfers to different voter segments, parties have incentive to (stochastically) shift resources away from voter segments with large relative efficiency gaps between the two parties’ transfers towards voter segments with smaller relative efficiency gaps. Because of this dependence on relative, and not absolute, levels of efficiency, the parties’ optimal strategies may lead to large discrepancies between the sum of the budgetary transfers and the sum of the effective transfers. At the extreme, in the spirit of Magee, Brock, and Young (1989), we obtain „black hole” inefficiency. When the model is extended to allow for loyal voter segments and loyalty to a party is positively related to the efficiency of that party’s transfers to the segment, the incentives leading to black hole inefficiency become even stronger. -- Diese Arbeit untersucht die Auswirkung von ineffizienter Umverteilungspolitk im Rahmen des Modells von Myerson (1993). Parteien versuchen, Wählersegmente für sich zu gewinnen, indem sie ihnen Transferzahlungen zusagen. Einzelne Wählersegmente unterscheiden sich in der Effizienz, mit der sich die Transferzahlungen einer bestimmten Partei in einen resultierenden Nutzengewinn für den Wähler übersetzen. Für die Parteien entsteht ein Anreiz, (stochastisch) Ressourcen hin zu Wählersegmenten zu verlagern, bei denen die Transfers von zwei verschiedenen Parteien einen relativ kleinen Unterschied in ihrem Effizienzniveau aufweisen, ungeachtet des absoluten Effizienzniveaus der Transferzahlung. Aufgrund dieser Abhängigkeit von relativen und nicht absoluten Effizienzniveaus können die Gleichgewichtsstrategien der Parteien zu großen Unterschieden zwischen der Summe der getätigten Transfers und der Summe der effektiv erhaltenen Transfers führen. Im Extremfall erhalten wir „black hole“-Ineffizienz wie in Magee, Brock und Young (1989). Eine Erweiterung des Modells um loyale Wählersegmente, bei der Loyalität zu einer Partei in positivem Bezug zur Effizienz der von dieser Partei erhaltenen Transfers steht, verstärkt die Anreize, die zu „black hole“-Ineffizienz führen.Redistributive politics,redistribution,inefficiency

Coalitional Colonel Blotto games with application to the economics of alliances

This paper examines a multi-player and multi-front Colonel Blotto game in which one player, A, simultaneously competes in two disjoint Colonel Blotto games, against two separate opponents, 1 and 2. Prior to competing in the games, players 1 and 2 have the opportunity to form an alliance to share their endowments of a one-dimensional resource (e.g., troops, military hardware, money). This paper examines „non-cooperative“ alliances in which only individually rational ex ante transfers of the resource are allowed. Once these transfers take place, each alliance member maximizes his payoff in his respective Colonel Blotto game, given his resource constraint and player A's allocation of its endowment across the two games. No ex post transfers are enforceable. Remarkably, there are several ranges of parameters in which endogenous unilateral transfers take place within the alliance. That is, one player gives away resources to his ally, who happily accepts the gift. Unilateral transfers arise because they lead to a strategic shift in the common opponent's force allocation away from the set of battlefields of the player making the transfer, towards the set of battlefields of the player receiving the transfer. Our result demonstrates that there exist unilateral transfers for which the combination of direct and strategic effects benefits both allies. This stands in stark contrast to the previous literature on alliances (see Sandler and Hartley, 2001), which relies on the assumption of pure or impure public goods. -- Diese Arbeit analysiert Colonel Blotto-Spiele mit mehr als zwei Spielern, die an mindestens zwei Fronten miteinander kämpfen. Spieler A kämpft gleichzeitig in zwei Colonel Blotto-Spielen mit zwei verschiedenen Kontrahenten, B1 und B2. Die Kontrahenten können vor der eigentlichen Konfliktphase eine Allianz eingehen. Das erlaubt es ihnen ihre Mengen an einer homogenen Konfliktressource (Truppen, Waffen, Geld) untereinander zu transferieren. Das Papier untersucht dabei „nicht-kooperative“ Allianzen. Darunter wird verstanden, dass der Einsatz der transferierten Ressourcen auf den jeweiligen Konfliktschauplätzen von dem jeweiligen Spieler B1 bzw. B2 in seinem eigenen Interesse eingesetzt wird und Seitenzahlungen im Anschluss an die Konfliktphase ausgeschlossen sind. Es zeigt sich, dass es dennoch zu einseitigen und freiwilligen Ressourcentransfers der Spieler B1 und B2 im Vorfeld des Konflikts kommen kann, dass also beispielsweise B1 an B2 z.B. Waffen liefert, B2 diese als Geschenk akzeptiert und sich beide, B1 und B2 besser stellen. Ursache für die Besserstellung ist der strategische Effekt solcher Transfers auf das Kampfverhalten von A, der seine Kampfkraft vom Kampfgeschehen mit B1 zum Kampfgeschehen mit B2 verlagert. Das Ergebnis widerspricht den früheren Ergebnissen zu Allianzen (vgl. Sandler und Hartley, 2001), das im Kontext der privaten Bereitstellung öffentlicher Güter erzielt wurde.Alliance,noncooperative game,Colonel Blotto game,self-enforcing,exploitation,commitment

A Blotto Game with Multi-Dimensional Incomplete Information

In the Colonel Blotto game, each of two players simultaneously allocates his fixed budget of a resource across a finite number n of battleelds. Within each battlefield, the player that allocates the higher level of the resource wins the battlefield. Each player's payoff is equal to the sum of the values of the battlefields he wins. In this paper we examine a multi-dimensional incomplete information version of the Colonel Blotto game in which each player's n-tuple of battlefield valuations is drawn from a common n-variate joint distribution function.Colonel Blotto Game, Con ict, Multi-dimensional Incomplete Information, Multi-dimensional Action Space

Is the 50-State Strategy Optimal?

In 2005, the Democratic National Committee adopted the 50-state strategy in lieu of the strategy of focusing solely on battleground states. The rationale given for this move is that campaign expenditures are durable outlays that impact both current and future campaigns. This paper investigates the optimality of the 50-state strategy in a simple dynamic game of campaign resource allocation in which expenditures act as a form of investment. Neither the 50-state nor the battleground-states strategy is likely to arise in equilibrium. Instead, parties employ a modified battleground-states strategy in which they stochastically target non-battleground states.Political Campaigns, Dynamic Contests, Elections, All-Pay Auction,War of Attrition

The Robustness of ‘Enemy-of-My-Enemy-is-My-Friend’ Alliances

This paper examines the robustness of alliance formation in a three-player, two-stage game in which each of two players compete against a third player in disjoint sets of contests. Although the players with the common opponent share no common interests, we find that under the lottery contest success function (CSF) there exists a range of parameter configurations in which the players with the common opponent have incentive to form an alliance involving a pre-conflict transfer of resources. Models that utilize the lottery CSF typically yield qualitatively different results from those arising in models with the auction CSF (Fang 2002). However, under the lottery and the auction CSFs, the parameter configurations within which players with a common opponent form an alliance are closely related. Our results, thus, provide a partial robustness result for ‘enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend’ alliances.Alliance Formation, Contests, Economics of Alliances, Conflict

The Optimal Defense of Networks of Targets

This paper examines a game-theoretic model of attack and defense of multiple networks of targets in which there exist intra-network strategic complementarities among targets. The defender’s objective is to successfully defend all of the networks and the attacker’s objective is to successfully attack at least one network of targets. In this context, our results highlight the importance of modeling asymmetric attack and defense as a conflict between “fully” strategic actors with endogenous entry and force expenditure decisions as well as allowing for general correlation structures for force expenditures within and across the networks of targets.Asymmetric Conflict, Attack and Defense, Weakest-Link, Best-Shot

Inefficient Redistribution and Inefficient Redistributive Politics

This paper examines the effect of inefficient redistribution in Myerson’s (1993) model of redistributive politics. Regardless of the absolute levels of the efficiency of political parties’ transfers to different voter segments, parties have incentive to (stochastically) shift resources away from voter segments with large relative efficiency gaps between the two parties’ transfers towards voter segments with smaller relative efficiency gaps. Because of this dependence on relative, and not absolute, levels of efficiency, the parties’ optimal strategies may lead to large discrepancies between the sum of the budgetary transfers and the sum of the effective transfers. At the extreme, in the spirit of Magee, Brock, and Young (1989), we obtain “black hole” inefficiency. When the model is extended to allow for loyal voter segments and loyalty to a party is positively related to the efficiency of that party’s transfers to the segment, the incentives leading to black hole inefficiency become even stronger.

Conflicts with Multiple Battlefields

This paper examines conflicts in which performance is measured by the players' success or failure in multiple component conflicts, commonly termed "battlefields." In multi-battlefield conflicts, behavioral linkages across battlefields depend both on the technologies of conflict within each battlefield and the nature of economies or diseconomies in how battlefield out- comes and costs aggregate in determining payoffs in the overall conflict.Con ict, Contest, Battleeld, Colonel Blotto Game, Auction, Lottery