Skip to main content

Game Theory in Public Choice

  • Chapter
The Encyclopedia of Public Choice
  • 90 Accesses

Abstract

Game theory is for proving theorems, not for playing games. (Reinhard Selten, quoted in Goerre and Holt, 2001)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 429.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aaron, H. (1999). Behavioral Dimensions of Retirement Economics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austen-Smith, D. (1990). “Information transmission in debate.” American Journal of Political Science, 34(February): 124–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austen-Smith, D. and Banks, J. (1989). “Electoral accountability and incumbency,” in P. Ordeshook (ed.) Models of Strategic Choice in Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, D. and Ferejohn, J. (1989). “Bargaining in legislatures.” American Political Science Review, 83(December): 1181–1206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, D. and Kalai, E. (1993). “The simplest equilibrium of a majority-rule division game.” Journal of Economic Theory, 61(December): 290–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. (1983). “A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(August): 371–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T. and Coate, S. (1997). “An economic model of representative democracy.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(February): 85–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, B. (2002). “Sociotropes, systematic bias, and political failure: reflections on the survey of Americans and economists on the economy.” Social Science Quarterly, (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, I. and Kreps, D. (1987). “Signaling games and stable equilibria.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(May): 179–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coate, S. and Morris, S. (1995). “On the form of transfers to special interests.” Journal of Political Economy, 103(December): 1210–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coughlin, P. (1992). Probabilistic Voting Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feddersen, T. and Pesendorfer, W. (1996). “The swing voter’s curse.” American Economic Review, 86(June): 408–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. and Eichenberger, R. (1991). “Anomalies in political economy.” Public Choice, 68(January): 71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goeree, J. and Holt, C. (2001). “Ten little treasures of game theory and ten intuitive contradictions.” American Economic Review, 91(December): 1402–1422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghirardato, P. and Katz, K. (2000). “Indecision theory: explaining selective abstention in multiple elections.” California Institute of Technology Social Science Working Paper 1106 (November).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, O. and Wagner, R. (1950). “A continuous Colonel Blotto game.” RAND RM-408 (June). Santa Monica, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. (1996). “On voter incentives to become informed,” California Institute of Technology Social Science Working Paper 968 (May).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollman, K., Miller, J., and Page, S. (1997). “Political Institutions and sorting in a tiebout model.” The American Economic Review, 87(December): 977–992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, D. and Wilson, R. (1982). “Sequential equilibrium.” Econometrica, 50: 863–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laffont, J. and Tirole, J. (1991). “The politics of government decision-making: a theory of regulatory capture.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(November): 1089–1127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohmann, S. (1994). “Information aggregation through costly political action.” American Economic Review, 84(June): 518–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mailath, G., Okuno-Fujiwara, M., and Postlewaite, A. (1993). “Belief-based refinements in signalling games.” Journal of Economic Theory, 60(August): 241–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. (1990). Beyond Self-interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, M. and Olson, M. (1996). “The economics of autocracy and majority rule: the invisible hand and the use of force.” Journal of Economic Literature, 34: 72–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, R. and Palfrey, T. (1995). “Quantal response equilibria for normal form games.” Games and Economic Behavior, 10: 6–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, R. and Palfrey, T. (1998). “Quantal response equilibria for extensive form games.” Experimental Economics, 1: 9–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, D. and Stratmann, T. (1994). “Informative and persuasive campaigning.” Public Choice, 81(October): 55–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myerson, R. (1993). “Incentives to cultivate favored minorities under alternative electoral sytems.” American Political Science Review, 87(December): 856–869.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ordeshook, P. (1986). Game Theory and Political Theory, An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sam Peltzman, S. (1991). “Review of The Handbook of Industrial Organization.” The Journal of Political Economy, 99(February): 201–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, M. (1998). “Psychology and economics.” Journal of Economic Literature, 36(March): 11–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, K. (1990). “Equilibrium political budget cycles.” The American Economic Review, 80(March): 21–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A. (2000). Inefficient Capital Markets: An Introduction to Behavioral Finance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1975). Simplicity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, C. (2000). “Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk.” Journal of Economic Literature, 38(June): 332–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinburne, R. (1997). Simplicity as Evidence of Truth. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hanson, R.D. (2004). Game Theory in Public Choice. In: Rowley, C.K., Schneider, F. (eds) The Encyclopedia of Public Choice. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-47828-4_108

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-47828-4_108

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-8607-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-306-47828-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics