Article

Coalition Formation in Non-Democracies

Review of Economic Studies (Impact Factor: 2.81). 10/2008; 75(4):987-1009. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00503.x
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT We study the formation of a ruling coalition in non-democratic societies where institutions do not enable political commitments. Each individual is endowed with a level of political power. The ruling coalition consists of a subset of the individuals in the society and decides the distribution of resources. A ruling coalition needs to contain enough powerful members to win against any alternative coalition that may challenge it, and it needs to be self-enforcing, in the sense that none of its subcoalitions should be able to secede and become the new ruling coalition. We present both an axiomatic approach that captures these notions and determines a (generically) unique ruling coalition and the analysis of a dynamic game of coalition formation that encompasses these ideas. We establish that the subgame-perfect equilibria of the coalition formation game coincide with the set of ruling coalitions resulting from the axiomatic approach. A key insight of our analysis is that a coalition is made self-enforcing by the failure of its winning subcoalitions to be self-enforcing. This is most simply illustrated by the following example: with "majority rule", two-person coalitions are generically not self-enforcing and consequently, three-person coalitions are self-enforcing (unless one player is disproportionately powerful). We also characterize the structure of ruling coalitions. For example, we determine the conditions under which ruling coalitions are robust to small changes in the distribution of power and when they are fragile. We also show that when the distribution of power across individuals is relatively equal and there is majoritarian voting, only certain sizes of coalitions ("e.g. "with majority rule, coalitions of size 1, 3, 7, 15, etc.) can be the ruling coalition. Copyright © 2008 The Review of Economic Studies Limited.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
144 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The institutional turn in comparative authoritarianism has generated wide interest. This article reviews three prominent books on authoritarian institutions and their central theoretical propositions about the origins, functions and effects of dominant party institutions on authoritarian rule. Two critical perspectives on political institutions, one based on rationalist theories of institutional design and the other based on a social conflict theory of political economy, suggest that authoritarian institutions are epiphenomenal on more fundamental political, social and/or economic relations. Such approaches have been largely ignored in this recent literature, but each calls into question the theoretical and empirical claims that form the basis of institutionalist approaches to authoritarian rule. A central implication of this article is that authoritarian institutions cannot be studied separately from the concrete problems of redistribution and policy making that motivate regime behavior.
    British Journal of Political Science 07/2013; 44(03):631-653. DOI:10.1017/S0007123413000021 · 1.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In nondemocratic politics, incumbency advantage often manifests in the incumbent's ability to elim-inate the opponent. We study the impact of this institutional imperfection on both the selection of politicians for o¢ ce and accountability for those who were selected. In a career-concerns framework, cit-izens and politicians are symmetrically yet imperfectly informed about the abilities of the latter. The outcome of a contest between the incumbent leader and a challenger depends on the incumbent's ability to use violence (an institutional parameter) and resolve to resort to violence, which depends on strategic advantages of having reputation for violence. In equilibrium, the ability to eliminate a political opponent (the non-democratic incumbency advantage) has a negative e¤ect on the incumbents' e¤orts in o¢ ce. The impact of this ability on the pool of successful challengers, however, might be positive. Furthermore, strategic interaction between the incumbent and future leaders generates a natural path-dependence: elimination of a political opponent typically hurts the selection of competent politicians, which encour-ages further violence. The model is simple and admits extensions that may be used for comparative studies of political institutions and their consequences.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Herein I propose a theory predicting why democracies enjoy better health out-comes. In essence, democracies enjoy better health outcomes because their institutions constrain politicians, maximize citizen welfare, and minimize political rents. Who is in power, and whether they are bound by electoral accountability or not, is mostly irrelevant. The point of elections is not to select good candidates, or to discipline them, but to make sure that there is alternation in power. This, I argue, is enough to induce the creation of self-enforcing institutions that constrain rulers and maximize citizen payoffs. The logic is deceptively simple. Most parties negotiating a transition to democracy can expect to be out of office most of the time. It is in their interest, therefore, to constrain future incumbents, reduce predation, and maximize their future expected payoffs as citizens. When the transition is successful accountability will be present at creation – embodied in institutions.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
54 Downloads
Available from
May 22, 2014