Influence of competition level on referees’ decision-making in handball

The influence of competition level on referees’ decision-making was investigated. Referees’ decisions in 90 handball games (30 games X 3 competition levels) were observed in different situations related to the advantage rule, and 100 referees from two different levels of expertise were subsequently asked to offer explanations for the competition-level effects from the first part of the study. Results revealed that at the highest level of competition referees intervened less frequently with sporting sanctions, but more frequently with disciplinary sanctions. These effects were apparent mainly in immediate intervention situations and unsuccessful advantage situations, but not in successful situations. Referees explained these effects of competition level in terms of a player competence stereotype, in addition to referees’ different expertise across competition level. The implications of the findings for understanding how status-related stereotypes impact on intervention behavior are discussed.     

Optimal coalition size when making proposals is costly

Though some costs of proposing legislation are borne by individual congressmen, the benefits accrue to many. To encourage legislators to incur these costs, members may wish to form coalitions which are larger than a minimum majority, and they may want to allow the proposer of a policy to incorporate private benefits into his proposal.We gratefully acknowledge the comments of anonymous referees, N. Baigent, A. DeVany, B. Grofman, and N. Stoughton. We are solely responsible for any remaining errors. The Securities and Exchange Commision, as a matter of policy, disclaims responsibility for any private publication or statement by any of its employees. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or the authors' colleagues on the Staff of the Commission.     

Measurement of inequality: An attempt at unification and generalization

This paper reviews and extends the theory of ethical inequality indices. It presents a novel axiom (strict separability of social welfare orderings in rank-ordered subspaces). This axiom allows to provide joint characterizations of the most important inequality measures (Atkinson family, Kolm-Pollak family and Generalized Ginis) and of some new more general classes of indices. The whole derivation is based on weak assumptions. In an ordinal framework only continuity of the underlying ordering is required and no cardinal properties are employed.I thank two anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions.     

On probabilistic rationalizability

This paper examines the problem of rationalizability of a choice system without imposing restrictions on the universal set of alternatives and the family of feasible sets. A choice system is the probabilistic counterpart of a choice function which is basic to much of the theory of individual choice behaviour in economics. We provide a necessary and sufficient condition for a choice system to be induced by a probability measure on a set of utility functions. I would like to thank the editor and two anonymous referees for helpful comments.     

Representing an ordering when the population varies

This note describes a domain of distributions of wellbeing, in which different distributions may have different populations. It proves a representation theorem for an ordering defined on this domain. Received: 19 September 2001/Accepted: 4 March 2002 I am extremely grateful to Sarah Moss for very helpful comments, and also to the journal's editor and referees. This note was written while I was a Visiting Fellow at the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University.     

The computational difficulty of manipulating an election

We show how computational complexity might protect the integrity of social choice. We exhibit a voting rule that efficiently computes winners but is computationally resistant to strategic manipulation. It is NP-complete for a manipulative voter to determine how to exploit knowledge of the preferences of others. In contrast, many standard voting schemes can be manipulated with only polynomial computational effort.Presented at Purdue University, March 1987; at the University of Arizona, April 1987; at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, April 1987; at Yale University, November 1987; at Centre International de Rencontres Mathematiques, Marseille-Luminy, April 1988. This research was supported in part by Presidential Young Investigator Awards from the National Science Foundation to the first two authors (ECS-8351313 and ECS-8451032), and by grant N00014-86-K-0173 from the Office of Naval Research.The authors appreciate many helpful comments and suggestions by the editor and three anonymous referees. We also thank Michel Balinski, Salvador Barbera, Jean-Pierre Barthelemy, and Peyton Young for stimulating discussions.     

The informational basis of the theory of fair allocation

The theory of fair allocation is often favourably contrasted with the social choice theory in the search for escape routes from Arrow’s impossibility theorem. Its success is commonly attributed to the fact that it is modest in its goal vis-à-vis social choice theory, since it does not aspire for a full-fledged ordering of options, and settles with a subset of ‘fair’ options. We show that its success may rather be attributable to a broadened informational basis thereof. To substantiate this claim, we compare the informational basis of the theory of fair allocation with the informational requirements of social choice theory.This paper is derived from a part of an earlier draft of our paper entitled ‘Informational requirements for social choice in economic environments’. The authors thank A. Trannoy, an associate editor and three referees for comments, and participants at seminars in University of Cergy-Pontoise, University of Rochester, Hitotsubashi University, and Waseda University, and the 5th International Meeting of the Society for Social Choice and Welfare in Alicante. Financial support from the Ministry of Education of Japan through Grant-in-Aid No. 10045010 (‘Economic Institutions and Social Norms: Evolution and Transformation’) and the 21st Century Center of Excellence Project on the Normative Evaluation and Social Choice of Contemporary Economic Systems is gratefully acknowledged.     

Can preferences for catastrophe avoidance reconcile social discounting with intergenerational equity?

A social welfare function treating all generations equally is derived from a set of axioms that allow for preferences for catastrophe avoidance or risk equity. Implications for the case where there is a risk of world extinction are studied. We show that substantial time discounting can arise from the planner’s taste for catastrophe avoidance, even if the probability of the world ending is infinitesimally small. We wish to thank Marc Fleurbaey, Thibault Gajdos, two anonymous referees and an associate editor for many valuable comments.     

An arbitration game and the egalitarian bargaining solution

We analyze a simple arbitration procedure which is a multi-stage variant of Nash's demand game. In the absence of discounting, all Nash equilibria of the game yield the egalitarian solution in the first stage. The crucial feature of our arbitration procedure is that, in the case of incompatible demands, the game is allowed to continue and the player who demands the higher gain over the disagreement point is penalized by restricting her or his feasible demands in the following stage. Suitable modifications of the arbitration game yield the lexicographic extension of the egalitarian solution, resp. the proportional solutions. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C72, C78.Financial support through grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Waterloo is gratefully acknowledged. Earlier versions of the paper were presented at McMaster University and Brock University. The authors thank Nejat Anbarci, Michele Piccione, Venkatraman Sadanand, an editor, and the referees for their useful comments.     

Strategy-proof,efficient, and nonbossy quota allocations

We consider the problem of designing a mechanism to allocate objects to agents when each agent has a quota that must be filled exactly. Agents are assumed to have responsive preferences over items. We show that the only strategy-proof, Pareto optimal, and nonbossy mechanisms are sequential dictatorships. We also show that the only strategy-proof, Pareto optimal, nonbossy, and neutral mechanisms are serial dictatorships. Since these negative results hold for responsive preferences, they hold for more general preferences as well. We are grateful to Atila Abdulkadiroğlu, Syed Nageeb Mustafa Ali, Douglas Bernheim, Navin Kartik, Jon Levin, Paul Milgrom, and Azeem Shaikh and two anonymous referees and an editor for helpful discussions. This research has been supported by the Burt and Deedee McMurtry Stanford Graduate Fellowship.     

Friedman, Harsanyi, Rawls, Boulding – or somebody else? An experimental investigation of distributive justice

This paper investigates distributive justice using a fourfold experimental design: The ignorance and the risk scenarios are combined with the self-concern and the umpire modes. We study behavioral switches between self-concern and umpire mode and investigate the goodness of ten standards of behavior. In the ignorance scenario, subjects became, on average, less inequality-averse as umpires. A within-subjects analysis shows that about one half became less inequality-averse, one quarter became more inequality-averse and one quarter remained unchanged as umpires. In the risk scenario, subjects became on average more inequality-averse in their umpire roles. A within-subjects analysis shows that about half became more inequality-averse, one quarter became less inequality-averse, and one quarter remained unchanged as umpires. As to the standards of behavior, several prominent ones (leximin, leximax, Gini, Cobb-Douglas) were not supported, while expected utility, Boulding’s hypothesis, the entropy social welfare function, and randomization preference enjoyed impressive acceptance. For the risk scenario, the tax standard of behavior joins the favorite standards of behavior.Financial Support of the European Commission under TMR Contract No. ERBFMRXCT98-0248 is gratefully acknowledged. We are indebted to Serge-Christophe Kolm, Alf Erling Risa, Peter Zweifel, two anonymous referees and an editor of Social Choice and Welfare for helpful comments. We thank Marc Paolella for improving our English writing style. The usual disclaimer applies. The experimental data can be obtained from the authors (e-mail: traub@bwl.uni-kiel.de).     

Yardstick competition and political agency problems

We examine how yardstick competition between jurisdictions affects the agency problem resulting from uncertainty about politicians (adverse selection) and their policies (moral hazard). We find that yardstick comparison can contribute both to disciplining and to selecting politicians.Earlier versions of this paper have circulated as Queen Mary Working Paper No. 444 and CORE Discussion Paper 2002/29. We would like to thank our editor, Maurice Salles, two anonymous referees, Mark Armstrong and Enrico Minelli for helpful comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank seminar participants at CORE, Queen Mary, Marseilles, and the 2002 Public Economic Theory conference, Université Paris 1.     

Labor Supply of Retiring Couples and Heterogeneity in Household Decision-Making Structure

This paper analyzes the labor market participation behavior of retiring couples in Norway. To account for the unobserved heterogeneity in decision-making structure within the household, I formulate a mixed model by assuming there are two types of households, the cooperative type and the non-cooperative type. I assume that non-cooperative households behave according to a Stackelberg game with the male as the leader, while cooperative households engage in a cooperative bargaining process. The estimation results show that more than half of the households are of the non-cooperative type.*Part of this paper was written while I was working at Department of Economics, University of Oslo and the Ragnar Frisch Center for Economic Research. I would like to thank Eivind Bernhardsen, John K. Dagsvik, Erik Hernæs and Steinar Strøm for their insightful comments. I am grateful to two anonymous referees and the editor, Professor Shoshana Grossbard, for providing valuable comments that greatly improve this paper. Financial support from the Research Council of Norway (project 140082/530) is gratefully acknowledged. The usual disclaimer applies.