TY - JOUR
T1 - Coalition formation in non-democracies
AU - Acemoglu, Daron
AU - Egorov, Georgy
AU - Sonin, Konstantin
N1 - Funding Information:
Part3.Theproofisbyinduction.Thebaseistrivial:aone-playercoalitionisself-enforcing,and|N|=k1=1.Now assumetheclaimhasbeenprovedforallq<|N|,letusproveitforq=|N|.If|N|=kmforsomem,thenanywinning (withinN)coalitionXmusthavesizeatleastα(⌊km−1/α⌋+1)>km−1(ifithassmallersizethenγX<αγN).By induction,allsuchcoalitionsarenotself-enforcing,andthismeansthatthegrandcoalitionisself-enforcing.If|N|∕ km for any m, then take m such that km−1 < |N| < km. Now take the coalition of the strongest km−1 individuals. This coalitionisself-enforcingbyinduction.Itisalsowinning(thisfollowssincekm−1≥α⌊km−1/α⌋=α(km−1)≥α|N|, which means that this coalition would have at least α share of power if all individuals had equal power, but since this is the strongest km−1 individuals, the inequality will be strict). Therefore, there exists a self-enforcing winning coalition, different from the grand coalition. This implies that the grand coalition is non-self-enforcing, completing the proof. Part 4. This follows from Part 3 and Proposition 3. ‖ excludes even the weakest player will not be self-enforcing. The inequality γ|N| < αj=2∑n−1γj/(1 − α) implies that player |N| does not form a winning coalition by himself. Therefore, either N is self-enforcing or φ(N) does not include the strongest player. ‖ Acknowledgements. We thank Attila Ambrus, Salvador Barbera, Jon Eguia, Irina Khovanskaya, Eric Maskin, Benny Moldovanu, Victor Polterovich, Andrea Prat, Debraj Ray, Muhamet Yildiz, three anonymous referees, and seminar participants at the Canadian Institute of Advanced Research, MIT, the New Economic School, the Institute for Advanced Studies, and University of Pennsylvania PIER, NASM 2007, and EEA-ESEM 2007 conferences for useful comments. Acemoglu gratefully acknowledges financial support from the National Science Foundation.
PY - 2008
Y1 - 2008
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=51749090386&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=51749090386&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00503.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00503.x
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:51749090386
SN - 0034-6527
VL - 75
SP - 987
EP - 1009
JO - Review of Economic Studies
JF - Review of Economic Studies
IS - 4
ER -