Through a sealed-bid first-price auction framework, we model the political parties’ choice to ally with each other in order to win an election for an executive office. Leading parties try to entice small ones by simultaneously offering transfers (e.g. government positions, support in other elections, prestige, power of being part of the winning alliance). We highlight the role of three particular reasons for the decision of alliance, namely pragmatism, ideology and alliance loyalty. While the first two may be seen in a simple one-election model, in which two leading parties dispute the support of a small one, loyalty must be analyzed in a dynamic setting with more than one election. Our results for three parties show that, aiming to form an alliance, the party which is favorite in the campaign always tends to offer less transfers to the small one than the underdog does. Furthermore, the closer the leading and the small party are in terms of ideology, the less the transfer offered te.
Download Free PDF View PDF
Download Free PDF View PDF
Download Free PDF View PDF
International Social Science Journal
Download Free PDF View PDF
Download Free PDF View PDF
Groups matter in our ordinary folk psychology because a part of our social interactions is done with collective entities. In our everyday life, we indeed sometimes ascribe mental states to social groups as a whole or to individuals as members of groups in order to understand and predict their behavior. The aim of this paper is to explore this aspect of social interactions by focusing on the concept of ‘collective belief’ in a non-summative sense and, more precisely, on collective belief of a specific kind of group: the political party. How can the concept of ‘collective belief’ help to understand the interactions which involve these kinds of collective entities? After providing an epistemic description of political parties, this paper focuses on the collective belief in a non-summative sense. As Gilbert says, a group believes that p, if its members are jointly committed to believe that p as a body. It is argued, with the help of an example from the political history of France, that this view can enable us to understand the interaction between political parties. More precisely, it can help clarify the way in which a political party use the rational constraints on the party as a whole and/or the social and epistemic constraints on the behavior of the group's members in order to destabilize or weaken other political parties.
Download Free PDF View PDF
