The scoring rules in an endogenous election

Plurality rule is mostly criticized from being capable of choosing an alternative considered as worst by a strict majority. This paper considers elections in which the agenda consists of potential candidates strategically choosing whether or not to enter the election. In this context, we examine the ability of scoring rules to fulfil the Condorcet criterion. We show for the case of three potential candidates that Plurality rule is the only scoring rule that satisfies a version of the Condorcet criterion in two cases: 1) when preferences are single-peaked and, 2) when preferences are single-dipped.

---

Characterizing Paretian preferences

A characterization of a property of binary relations is of type M if it can be stated in terms of ordered M-tuples of alternatives. A characterization of finite type provides an easy test of whether preferences over a large set of alternatives possesses the property characterized. Unfortunately, there is no characterization of finite type for Pareto representability in . A partial result along the same lines is obtained for Pareto representability in , k>2.

---

Argumentation theory and GM foods

The European debate around genetically modified foods was one of the most sustained and ardent public discussions in the late 1990s. Concerns about risks to human health and the environment were voiced alongside claims that healthier foods can be produced more efficiently and in a more environmentally friendly manner using the new technology. The aims of this paper are (1) to test the usefulness of Stephen Toulmins argumentation model for the analysis of public debates almost 50 years after it was first introduced, and (2) to establish whether any of the parties in the genetically modified (GM) food debate used seriously flawed argumentation. The paper argues that Stephen Toulmins argumentation model can be useful in three ways when analysing public debates. Firstly, incomplete or flawed claims can be defeated by exposing missing or mismatching argumentation elements; all examined arguments in the GM debate were well formulated. Secondly, weaknesses in argumentation can be identified by making explicit warrants and backing; in the GM case, this allowed the identification of points of attack for counter-argumentation. Thirdly, analysing the type of backing used, allows inferences about the persuasion approach taken. The industrialists employed ethical principles as their backing much more than the scientists and environmentalists, a surprising result.

---

Reduced prizes and increased effort in contests

We study the general class of two-player public-policy contests and specify the asymmetry condition under which a more restrained government intervention that reduces the contestants’ prizes has the “perverse” effect of increasing their aggregate lobbying efforts.

---

The Feeble Strength of One? Interdependence, Strategic Interaction, and the Decentralization of Collective Bargaining

This paper contributes to research examining class formation processes among capitalists by analyzing the fracturing of multiemployer collective bargaining associations in the U.S. coal mining and steel industries. The paper evaluates three theories of bargaining decentralization and offers an alternative account. Analyzing both the earlier stability of multiemployer bargaining and its subsequent decline, the paper attributes decentralization to changes in relationships of interdependence and power among unionized firms. While broad processes of economic restructuring gave rise to these shifts, social processes involving conflict and negotiation determined the specific direction of institutional change.