Sufficient conditions for legislative cooperation are identified within the context
of a model of repeated legislative interaction. We show that in many environments,
cooperation is sustainable even among impatient legislators. Special attention is
given to the case of repeated spatial bargaining; we find that when the
dimensionality of the policy space is sufficiently large, parameterizations of the
model which do not admit cooperation are rare and atypical. Furthermore, contrary to
conventional wisdom, we demonstrate that legislative cooperation is possible in a
one-dimensional policy space. The developed theory is applied to address various
claims in the substantive literature on legislative parties.
Aldrich, John
(1995) Why Parties?Chicago: University of Chicago Press
.
2.
Aldrich, John
and
David Rohde
(1998) ‘Measuring Conditional Party
Government’, Mimeo,
Duke University
.
3.
Aldrich, John
and
David Rohde
(2000) ‘The Consequences of Party Organization
in the House: The Role of Majority and Minority Parties in Conditional Party
Government’, in
Jon R. Bond
and
Richard Fleischer
(eds) Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan
Era, pp. 31-72.
Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press
.
4.
Austen-Smith, David
and
Jeffery S. Banks
(1999) Positive Political Theory I.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
.
5.
Baron, David P.
(1996)
‘A Dynamic Theory of Collective Goods Programs’
, American Political Science Review90:
316-330
.
6.
Buchanan, James
and
Gordon Tullock
(1962) The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of
Constitutional Democracy.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
.
7.
Calvert, Randall
(1995) ‘Rational Actors, Equilibrium, and Social
Institutions’, in
Jack Knight
and
Itai Sened
(eds) Explaining Social Institutions, pp.
57-93.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
.
8.
Calvert, Randall
and
Justin Fox
(2003) ‘Effective Parties in a Model of Repeated
Legislative Bargaining’, Mimeo,
Washington University at St. Louis
.
9.
Calvert, Randall
and
Barry Weingast
(1993) ‘Party Coherence and Cooperation in a
Legislature’, Mimeo,
Washington University at St. Louis
.
10.
Carrubba, Clifford J.
and
Craig Volden
(2000)
‘Coalition Politics and Logrolling in Legislative Institutions’
, American Journal of Political Science44:
261-277
.
11.
Chiou, Fang-Yi
and
Lawrence Rothenberg
(2003)
‘When Pivotal Politics Meets Partisan Politics’
, American Journal of Political Science47:
503-522
.
12.
Cox, Gary W.
and
Mathew D. McCubbins
(1993) Legislative Leviathan.
Berkeley: University of California Press
.
13.
Cox, Gary W.
and
Mathew D. McCubbins
(2002)
‘Agenda Power in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1877 to 1986’
, in
David Brady
and
Matthew D. McCubbins
(eds) Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress, pp.
107-145
. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
Duggan, John
(forthcoming)
‘Endogenous Voting Agendas’
, Social Choice and Welfare.
15.
Epple, Dennis
and
Michael Riordan
(1987)
‘Cooperation and Punishment under Repeated Majority Voting’
, Public Choice55:
41-73
.
16.
Fudenberg, Drew
and
Eric Maskin
(1986)
‘The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting or with
Incomplete Information’
, Econometrica54:
533-554
.
17.
Ingberman, Daniel
(1985)
‘Running Against the Status Quo: Institutions for Direct
Democracy Referenda and Allocations Over Time’
, Public Choice46:
19-43
.
18.
Kalandrakis, Anastassios
(2004)
‘A Three-player Dynamic Majoritarian Bargaining Game’
, Journal of Economic Theory116:
294-322
.
19.
Krehbiel, Keith
(1993)
‘Where’s the Party?’
, British Journal of Political Science23:
235-266
.
20.
Krehbiel, Keith
(1998) Pivotal Politics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press
.
21.
Krehbiel, Keith
(2000)
‘Party Discipline and Measures of Partisanship’
, American Journal of Political Science44:
206-221
.
22.
Krehbiel, Keith
and
Adam Meirowitz
(2002)
‘Minority Rights and Majority Power: Theoretical Consequences of
the Motion to Recommit’
, Legislative Studies Quarterly26:
191-217
.
23.
Lawrence, Eric D.
,
Forrest Maltzman
and
Steven S. Smith
(forthcoming)
‘Who Wins? Party Effects in Legislative Voting’
, Legislative Studies Quarterly.
24.
McCarty, Nolan
,
Keith T. Poole
, and
Howard Rosenthal
(2001)
‘The Hunt for Party Discipline in Congress’
, American Political Science Review95:
673-687
.
25.
Plott, Charles
(1967)
‘A Notion of Equilibrium and Its Possibility under Majority Rule’
, American Economic Review57:
787-806
.
26.
Primo, David
(2002)
‘Rethinking Political Bargaining: Policymaking with a Single
Proposer’, Journal of Law, Economics
, and Organization18:
411-427
.
27.
Romer, Thomas
and
Howard Rosenthal
(1978)
‘Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agendas, and the
Status Quo’
, Public Choice33:
27-44
.
28.
Rohde, David W.
(1991) Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press
.
29.
Saari, Donald
(1997)
‘The Generic Existence of a Core for q-Rules’
, Economic Theory9:
219-260
.
30.
Schwartz, Thomas
(1989) ‘Why Parties?’, Mimeo,
University of California at Los Angeles
.
31.
Smith, Steven
(2000)
‘Positive Theories of Congressional Parties’
, Legislative Studies Quarterly25:
193-215
.
32.
Snyder, James M.
and
Tim Groseclose
(2000)
‘Estimating Party Influence in Congressional Roll-call Voting’
, American Journal of Political Science44:
193-211
.
33.
Weingast, Barry
(1979)
‘A Rational Choice Perspective on Congressional Norms’
, American Journal of Political Science23:
245-262
.
34.
Weingast, Barry
and
William Marshall
(1988)
‘The Industrial Organization of Congress; or Why Legislatures,
Like Firms, Are Not Organized as Markets’
, Journal of Political Economy96:
132-163
.
