Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
726
result(s) for
"Koalition."
Sort by:
Who Dislikes Whom? Affective Polarization between Pairs of Parties in Western Democracies
While dislike of opposing parties, that is, affective polarization, is a defining feature of contemporary politics, research on this topic largely centers on the United States. We introduce an approach that analyzes affective polarization between pairs of parties, bridging the US two-party system and multiparty systems in other democracies. Analyzing survey data from twenty Western democracies since the mid-1990s, first, we show that partisans' dislike of out-parties is linked to elite policy disagreements on economic issues and, increasingly over time, also to cultural issues. Secondly, we argue and empirically demonstrate that governing coalition partners in parliamentary democracies display much warmer feelings toward each other than we would expect based on elite policy (dis)agreements. Third, we show that radical right parties are disliked much more intensely than we would expect based on policy disputes and coalition arrangements. These findings highlight the policy-based and institutional underpinnings of affective polarization.
Journal Article
Nach dem Ende der Ampel. Erwägungen zu der vorgezogenen Bundestagswahl 2025
Nach dem vorzeitigen Ende der Koalition aus SPD, FDP und Grünen finden in der Bundesrepublik am 23. Februar 2025 zum vierten Mal vorgezogene Neuwahlen statt. Die „Ampel“ scheiterte nach verheißungsvollem Start an letztlich unüberbrückbaren Differenzen zwischen SPD/Grünen und der FDP in der Wirtschaftspolitik. Der beispiellose Ansehensverlust der Regierungsparteien ab dem Herbst 2022 verschafft der Union eine gute Ausgangsposition für den Machtwechsel. Ob sie ihrer Favoritenrolle gerecht werden kann, bleibt aber offen. Mit sorgenvoller Spannung wird auch das Abschneiden der Randparteien erwartet.
Journal Article
THE FARSIGHTED STABLE SET
Harsanyi (1974) criticized the von Neumann-Morgenstern (vNM) stable set for its presumption that coalitions are myopic about their prospects. He proposed a new dominance relation incorporating farsightedness, but retained another feature of the stable set: that a coalition S can impose any imputation as long as its restriction to S is feasible for it. This implicitly gives an objecting coalition complete power to arrange the payoffs of players elsewhere, which is clearly unsatisfactory. While this assumption is largely innocuous for myopic dominance, it is of crucial significance for its farsighted counterpart. Our modification of the Harsanyi set respects \"coalitional sovereignty.\" The resulting farsighted stable set is very different from both the Harsanyi and the vNM sets. We provide a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a farsighted stable set containing just a single-payoff allocation. This condition roughly establishes an equivalence between core allocations and the union of allocations over all single-payoff farsighted stable sets. We then conduct a comprehensive analysis of the existence and structure of farsighted stable sets in simple games. This last exercise throws light on both single-payoff and multi-payoff stable sets, and suggests that they do not coexist.
Journal Article
Computing Stable Outcomes in Symmetric Additively Separable Hedonic Games
We study the computational complexity of finding stable outcomes in hedonic games, which are a class of coalition formation games. We restrict our attention to symmetric additively separable hedonic games, which are a nontrivial subclass of such games that are guaranteed to possess stable outcomes. These games are specified by undirected edge-weighted graphs: nodes are players, an outcome of the game is a partition of the nodes into coalitions, and the utility of a node is the sum of incident edge weights in the same coalition. We consider several stability requirements defined in the literature. These are based on restricting feasible player deviations, for example, by giving existing coalition members veto power. We extend these restrictions by considering more general forms of preference aggregation for coalition members. In particular, we consider voting schemes to decide whether coalition members will allow a player to enter or leave their coalition. For all of the stability requirements we consider, the existence of a stable outcome is guaranteed by a potential function argument, and local improvements will converge to a stable outcome. We provide an almost complete characterization of these games in terms of the tractability of computing such stable outcomes. Our findings comprise positive results in the form of polynomial-time algorithms and negative results in the form of proofs of polynomial local search (PLS)–hardness. The negative results extend to more general hedonic games.
Journal Article
Legislative and Multilateral Bargaining
This review of the theoretical literature on legislative and multilateral bargaining begins with presentation of the seminal Baron-Ferejohn model. The review then encompasses the extensions to bargaining among asymmetric players in terms of bargaining power, voting weights, and time and risk preferences; spatial bargaining; bargaining over a stochastic surplus; bargaining over public goods; legislative bargaining with alternative bargaining protocols in which players make demands, compete for recognition, or make counterproposals; and legislative bargaining with cheap talk communication.
Journal Article
Buy Coal! A Case for Supply-Side Environmental Policy
Free-riding is at the core of environmental problems. If a climate coalition reduces its emissions, world prices change and nonparticipants typically emit more; they may also extract the dirtiest type of fossil fuel and invest too little in green technology. The coalition’s second-best policy distorts trade and is not time consistent. However, suppose that the countries can trade the rights to exploit fossil-fuel deposits: As soon as the market clears, the above-mentioned problems vanish and the first-best is implemented. In short, the coalition’s best policy is to simply buy foreign deposits and conserve them.
Journal Article
Symmetric Sequential Stability in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Multiple Decision Makers
In this work, we generalize a solution concept, called symmetric sequential stability (SSEQ), in the graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR) for conflicts involving
n
decision makers. We present new relations of this concept with existing stability definitions in the GMCR, namely: Nash stability, general metarational stability, symmetric metarational stability, sequential stability, limited-move stability of horizon 3 and credible metarational stable states of 2 rounds. We also present the SSEQ stability definition for a coalition and its relationship with existing solution concepts in that case. Finally, SSEQ stability is extended for GMCR with uncertain, probabilistic and fuzzy preferences.
Journal Article
Consistent social ranking solutions
The performance of coalitions is an important measure for evaluating individuals. Sport players, researchers, and firm workers are often judged with their team performances. The social ranking solution (SRS) is a function that maps the ranking on the set of all feasible coalitions (the domain of coalitions) into the ranking of individuals. Importing the axiom of consistency from voting theory, we study consistent SRSs under the variable domains of coalitions. We suppose that there are several domains of coalitions (e.g., a set of research teams made up of only young researchers and a set of research teams including senior researchers), and the individuals are required to be evaluated consistently on each domain of coalition. Such a situation is typical because all the logically possible coalitions are often too huge to deal with. We obtain a new characterization of the lexicographic excellence solution (LES) and its dual (DLES): they are the only SRSs satisfying consistency, neutrality, weak coalitional anonymity, and complete dominance. This characterization is expected to provide a new ground for determining the impacts of individuals based on the lexicographic comparisons of their team performances.
Journal Article
Priority coalitional games and claims problems
In this paper, we analyze priority coalitional games as an extension of balanced games with transferable utility. Here, conditions imposed by a stable allocation used in the past need to be respected when deciding on a new allocation of the revenues obtained by the grand coalition. Using claims problems as a tool, we define weak and strong priority games with respect to a given allocation and a priority coalition, and study their properties and core. In the weak priority game, the value of a coalition reflects that coalitional members with priority should not be harmed, i.e., the coalitional value should never be below their total benefits according to the initial allocation. In the strong priority game, in addition to the previous condition, players outside the coalition that are not in the priority group should not harbour aspirations exceeding those benefits given by the initial allocation. Priority games are also extended to analyze cooperation restricted by a hierarchical structure. These games restrict the core so that desirable monotonicity properties are satisfied when there is a hierarchy. This allows for reconciling core selection and monotonicity over a hierarchy.
Journal Article