Political Economy, Social Choice and Game Theory - Series II

A special issue of Games (ISSN 2073-4336).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (5 December 2021) | Viewed by 11354

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Canada N2L 3C5
Interests: public economics; intergovernmental federalism; game theory; political economy and bargaining theory
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear colleagues,

The topics covered in this Special Issue are embedded within political economy and social choice traditions using game theory tools that study the strategic interactions among the players in these games.

Political economy lies at the intersection of economics and political science and studies how self-interested actors (voters, politician, political parties, and other agents) make joint decisions over the public policies when their preferences are not aligned. Social choice combines welfare economics and voting theory to study the aggregation of individual preferences taking into account the interests or the welfare of those involved in the decision process with the aim of reaching collective decisions or social welfare objectives. The goal of social choice theory is to find a mechanism that ranks all possible outcomes according to some social preferences and if possible, to determine a winning alternative. These models seek to find voting equilibria over public policies (e.g., tax rates or the provision of public goods).

Social choice and political economy offer an integrated theoretical apparatus that studies the response of voters in democratic societies to governmental policies or to the policies with which candidates compete in elections. A wide range of game theory concepts and tools are used to model the strategic interaction among these players. Public economics, political economy, social choice and other strands of economic and political science literature aim to find the equilibria of these models. Yet even the simplest of these models are plagued by equilibrium existence problems. Studying the existence or lack thereof of equilibria in these models is of paramount importance when making predictions or performing comparative static analysis of the issues under study.

Social choice and political economy address similar issues using game theory tools. Social choice focuses on the properties of the social preference relation induced by the voting rule and examines whether these social preferences may be cyclical (leading to an empty core under majority rule and unrestricted preference domains). Political economy emphasizes the existence of equilibria (which is problematic if the core of the voting game is empty). Yet these two approaches are close, since the dominance condition that is used in discussing the core of a voting game is precisely the social preference relation that social choice theorists’ study.

The papers included in this issue give insights the following topics.

  • Using the Condorcet Jury Theorem (CJT) set up, Goetz studies how voters in large electorates with common interests facing more than two alternatives choose between alternatives.
  • Using the CJT set up in a laboratory experiment, Goertz and Chernomaz examine the efficiency of information aggregation in five member committees that face three alternatives.
  • Studying the optimal majority rule (simple majority and supermajorities) in referenda where voters choose between two options (reform vs. the status quo), Cheng and Li bring light into the hotly debated 2016 Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom.
  • Mayer studies Luxembourg’s voting power in the Council of Ministries (CM) during the first period (1958-1972) of the European Economic Community (EEC) to show that Luxemburg was not a “null” player but that instead its positive voting power emanated from a strong alliance with the Benelux Countries.
  • Kaminski extends backwards induction to games with imperfect information and develops a generalized backwards induction algorithm to solve political economy games.
  • Sadanand introduces a new equilibrium concept, the Ideal Reactive Equilibrium, that refines equilibria in dynamic/sequential games where players find the equilibrium without having to rely on their beliefs of actions taken of the off the equilibrium path.
Dr. Maria Gallego
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Games is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Political Economy
  • Social Choice
  • Political Regimes
  • Institutional Structures
  • Elections
  • Bargaining And Conflict
  • Voters
  • Special Interest Groups
  • Parties/Candidates
  • Information Aggregation
  • Repeated Elections

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (4 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

20 pages, 1388 KiB  
Article
Does Party Polarization Affect the Electoral Prospects of a New Centrist Candidate?
by Arnaud Dellis
Games 2022, 13(4), 53; https://doi.org/10.3390/g13040053 - 31 Jul 2022
Viewed by 2034
Abstract
Does party polarization affect the electoral prospects of a new centrist candidate? The paper investigates this question in the context of a laboratory experiment where a centrist candidate is added to the race between a left candidate and a right candidate. The experimental [...] Read more.
Does party polarization affect the electoral prospects of a new centrist candidate? The paper investigates this question in the context of a laboratory experiment where a centrist candidate is added to the race between a left candidate and a right candidate. The experimental design varies the polarization of the left and right candidates. The paper focuses on the effect of party polarization on the electoral prospects of a new centrist candidate through strategic voting behavior with experimental subjects acting as voters. The paper yields two main results: (1) party polarization initially improves the electoral prospects of a new centrist candidate; and (2) the effect of party polarization on the electoral prospects of the centrist weakens and ultimately disappears as elections are repeated. This happens because party polarization slows down the speed at which voters desert their candidate and vote strategically for the centrist in an apparent attempt at preventing the election of the candidate on the opposite side. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Political Economy, Social Choice and Game Theory - Series II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

4 pages, 192 KiB  
Article
Egalitarian Allocations and Convexity
by Irinel C. Dragan
Games 2022, 13(2), 27; https://doi.org/10.3390/g13020027 - 31 Mar 2022
Viewed by 1950
Abstract
In the Inverse Set, relative to the Shapley Value of a non-convex cooperative game, we derive a procedure to find out a convex game in which the Egalitarian Allocation is a coalitional rational value. The procedure depends on the relationship between two parameters [...] Read more.
In the Inverse Set, relative to the Shapley Value of a non-convex cooperative game, we derive a procedure to find out a convex game in which the Egalitarian Allocation is a coalitional rational value. The procedure depends on the relationship between two parameters called the Convexity Threshold and the Coalitional Rationality Threshold. Some examples follow and illustrate the procedure. We discussed a similar problem for other efficient values, the Shapley Value and the Egalitarian Nonseparable Contribution, in earlier work. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Political Economy, Social Choice and Game Theory - Series II)
22 pages, 903 KiB  
Article
How Strong Are Soccer Teams? The “Host Paradox” and Other Counterintuitive Properties of FIFA’s Former Ranking System
by Marek M. Kaminski
Games 2022, 13(2), 22; https://doi.org/10.3390/g13020022 - 3 Mar 2022
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 3843
Abstract
I investigate the paradoxes associated with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) point-based ranking of national soccer teams. The ranking has been plagued with paradoxes that incentivize teams to avoid playing friendly matches, i.e., matches that are not part of any official [...] Read more.
I investigate the paradoxes associated with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) point-based ranking of national soccer teams. The ranking has been plagued with paradoxes that incentivize teams to avoid playing friendly matches, i.e., matches that are not part of any official FIFA tournament or preliminaries, and applying other counterintuitive strategies. The most spectacular paradox was the dramatic underrating of the hosts of major tournaments. For a long time, host teams, which were absent from preliminary matches, would play only friendly matches that awarded few points. Here, I present three models that estimate the magnitude of the resulting “host effect” at 14.2–16 positions. Such an estimate counteracts the intuition that a large investment in hosting a tournament should result in an improvement in the host team’s standing. However, as discussed here, a given host’s low ranking could decrease interest in the tournament, and likely result in a major loss of advertisement revenue. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Political Economy, Social Choice and Game Theory - Series II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

8 pages, 244 KiB  
Article
A Bargaining Game with Proposers in the Hot Seat
by Bram Driesen
Games 2021, 12(4), 87; https://doi.org/10.3390/g12040087 - 18 Nov 2021
Viewed by 2221
Abstract
This note reconsiders the Rubinstein bargaining game under the assumption that a rejected offer is only costly to the proposer who made the rejected offer. It is shown that then, the classic result of Shaked that, in the multilateral version of this game, [...] Read more.
This note reconsiders the Rubinstein bargaining game under the assumption that a rejected offer is only costly to the proposer who made the rejected offer. It is shown that then, the classic result of Shaked that, in the multilateral version of this game, every division of the good can be sustained in SPE no longer holds. Specifically, there are many SPE, but players’ (expected) payoffs in SPE are unique. The assumption further leads to a responder advantage. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Political Economy, Social Choice and Game Theory - Series II)
Back to TopTop