All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Bargaining in Legislatures over Particularistic and Collective Goods
Unformatted Document Text:  2 provide for both particularistic and collective goods policies? Third, what accounts for the variation in collective goods provided by the legislature? Fourth, how do the benefits that accrue to the proposer change as the value of the collective good increases vis-à-vis the value of particularistic goods? Fifth, what legislative rules will be selected by a legislature confronting both collective and particularistic policies? Allowing legislators to allocate spending for both public and pork barrel purposes, our model establishes the following. First, collective goods policies are not implemented when legislators place a much higher value on particularistic policies, when the rate of return for the collective good is low, when legislators are patient, and when the legislature is relatively small. Second, we see that legislation combining particularistic and collective goods is passed when legislators place moderate values on the production of both kinds of policies. Even in these cases, however, we only observe the legislative proposer receiving particularistic benefits in addition to the collective benefit. Third, we find that the actual size of the collective good is highly responsive to the relative value of the collective policy vis-à-vis particularistic goods, the rate of return on the collective investment, legislators’ patience, and the size of the legislature. Fourth, we find that when only particularistic policies are passed, a benefit of proposal power is increasing in the relative value of the particularistic good vis-à-vis the collective. Where both particularistic and collective policies are passed, however, the opposite can hold true. Finally, although legislatures providing only particularistic goods prefer closed rules, legislature prefer open amendment rules when considering legislation that simultaneously combines collective and particularistic purposes. Our paper is organized as follows. In the next section we briefly review the relevant literature, and note how our approach to this problem deviates from the prevailing works. We

Authors: Volden, Craig. and Wiseman, Alan.
first   previous   Page 3 of 39   next   last



background image
2
provide for both particularistic and collective goods policies? Third, what accounts for the
variation in collective goods provided by the legislature? Fourth, how do the benefits that accrue
to the proposer change as the value of the collective good increases vis-à-vis the value of
particularistic goods? Fifth, what legislative rules will be selected by a legislature confronting
both collective and particularistic policies?
Allowing legislators to allocate spending for both public and pork barrel purposes, our
model establishes the following. First, collective goods policies are not implemented when
legislators place a much higher value on particularistic policies, when the rate of return for the
collective good is low, when legislators are patient, and when the legislature is relatively small.
Second, we see that legislation combining particularistic and collective goods is passed when
legislators place moderate values on the production of both kinds of policies. Even in these
cases, however, we only observe the legislative proposer receiving particularistic benefits in
addition to the collective benefit. Third, we find that the actual size of the collective good is
highly responsive to the relative value of the collective policy vis-à-vis particularistic goods, the
rate of return on the collective investment, legislators’ patience, and the size of the legislature.
Fourth, we find that when only particularistic policies are passed, a benefit of proposal power is
increasing in the relative value of the particularistic good vis-à-vis the collective. Where both
particularistic and collective policies are passed, however, the opposite can hold true. Finally,
although legislatures providing only particularistic goods prefer closed rules, legislature prefer
open amendment rules when considering legislation that simultaneously combines collective and
particularistic purposes.
Our paper is organized as follows. In the next section we briefly review the relevant
literature, and note how our approach to this problem deviates from the prevailing works. We


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 3 of 39   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.