Models of electoral agency address the levels of discipline and selection that voters can achieve in elections. The models are demanding in terms of individual belief formation and consistency of behavior. We investigate a baseline model of electoral agency in a controlled laboratory environment. This baseline model, although simple, forms the central plank of more complex electoral agency models. Our design seeks to limit the behavioral impact of social preferences. We find little support for the baseline model in our data. However, simple (non-rational) learning rules explain behavioral patterns well. Simulations indicate that non-rational learning drives behavior most forcefully towards equilibrium in situations that are favorable to Bayesian updating.
AlesinaABaqirREasterlyW (1999) Public goods and ethnic divisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics114(4): 1243–1284.
2.
AragonesEPalfreyT (2005) The effect of candidate quality on electoral equilibrium: An experimental study. In: Austen-SmithDDugganJ (eds) Social Choice and Strategic Behavior: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Scot Banks. Springer: Berlin.
3.
Austen-SmithDBanksJ (1989) Electoral accountability and incumbency. In: OrdeshookP (ed.) Models of Strategic Choice in Politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
4.
BanksJSundaramR (1993) Adverse selection and moral hazard in a repeated elections model. In: BarnettWSchofieldNHinichM (eds) Political Economy: Institutions, Information, Competition and Representation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BarroR (1973) The control of politicians: An economic model. Public Choice14: 19–42.
6.
BesleyT (2006) Principled Agents? The Political Economy of Good Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
BesleyTPerssonTSturmD (2010) Political competition, policy and growth: Theory and evidence from the US. Review of Economic Studies77(4): 1329–1352.
8.
BoltonGBrandtsJKatokE. (2009) Testing theories of other-regarding behavior: A sequence of four laboratory studies. In: PlottCSmithV (eds) Handbook of Experimental Economics Results. Volume 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
9.
BrownG (1951) Iterative solutions of games by fictitious play. In: KoopmansTC (ed.) Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation. New York: Wiley.
10.
CamererCHoT (1999) Experience weighted attraction learning in games: Estimates from weak link games. In: BudescuDErevIZwickR (eds) Games and Human Behavior: Essays in Honour of Amnon Rapoport. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
CaplanB (2007) The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
DasguptaSWilliamsK (2002) A principal–agent model of elections with novice incumbents: Some experimental results. Journal of Theoretical Politics14(4): 409–438.
13.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
14.
EasterlyWLevineR (1997) Africa’s growth tragedy: Policies and ethnic divisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics112(4): 1203–1250.
15.
ErevIRothA (1995) Learning in extensive form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term. Games and Economic Behavior8: 164–212.
16.
FearonJ (1999) Electoral accountability and the control of politicians: Selecting good types versus sanctioning poor performance. In: PrzeworskiAStokesSManinB (eds) Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
FehrE (2009) Social preferences and the brain. In: GlimcherPCamererCFehrE. (eds) Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain. London: Academic Press.
18.
FerejohnJ (1986) Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice50: 5–26.
19.
FischbacherU (1999) Z-tree. Zurich Toolbox for Readymade Economic Experiments. Zurich: University of Zurich.
HayekF (1979) Law Legislation and Liberty. Volume 3: The Political Order of a Free People. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
HellandLSørensenR (2011) Biased competition, popularity shocks, and government inefficiency. Working Paper, BI Norwegian Business School.
23.
HouserDMortonRStratmanT (2008) Turned off or turned out? Campaign advertising, information and voting. Discussion Paper, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science, George Mason University.
24.
KamCFranzeseR (2007) Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
25.
McKelveyROrdeshookP (1985) Sequential elections with limited information. American Journal of Political Science29: 480–512.
26.
MarkussenTTyranJR (2009) Serving the public interest. Centre for Experimental Economics, University of Copenhagen (unpublished).
27.
MaskinETiroleJ (2004) The politician and the judge: Accountability in government. American Economic Review94(4): 1034–1054.
28.
OrdeshookP (1997) The spatial analysis of committees and elections. In: MuellerD (ed) Perspectives on Public Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
PerssonTTabelliniG (2000) Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
30.
Petterson-LidbomP (2006) Testing political agency models. Working Paper, Department of Economics, Stockholm University.
31.
PopperK (1989) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.
RikerW (1982) Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco: Freeman.
34.
RothAErevI (1995) Learning in extensive-form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term. Games and Economic Behavior8: 164–212.
35.
SchumpeterJ (1996) [1943]: Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. London: Routledge.
36.
SonnemansJSchramA (2009) Participation game experiments: Explaining voter turnout. In: PlottCSmithV (eds) Handbook of Experimental Economics Results. Volume 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
37.
SvalerydHVlachosJ (2009) Political rents in a non-corrupt democracy. Journal of Public Economics93: 355–372.
38.
SvenssonJ (1999) Controlling spending: Electoral competition, polarization and endogenous platforms, IIES/Stockholm University (unpublished).
