Abstract
This study analyzes the welfare implications of requiring either unanimity or a simple majority in negotiations to distribute a budget among three agents who could previously invest to generate positive consumption externalities for others. This complements Cardona and Rubi-Barcelo (2014), who consider only the unanimity case. We show that reducing the majority requirement reduces the profitability of investments, and consequently alleviates overinvestment, which is predominant under unanimous bargaining. Nevertheless, requiring a simple majority reduces the aggregate surplus attained in the bargaining stage. Therefore, the relative performance of the bargaining rules is uncertain. We show how the size of consumption externalities affects this performance.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
