syllabus_POL576_2024
syllabus_POL576_2024
syllabus_POL576_2024
[email protected]
609-258-9933
PURPOSE:
This course builds on POL 575, to further develop the analytical foundations for examining
problems in collective choice. Topics include vote buying, multilateral bargaining, strategic
information transmission, strategic voting with incomplete information, career concerns, and
strategic experimentation. Readings combine textbooks and research literature. Prerequi-
site: POL 575.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS:
Grades are based on the following weighting scheme: 25% problem sets, 20% presentations,
20% model sketch, 35% final.
There will be 4 or 5 problem sets. You can work together on problem sets, but final answers
must be written independently. Collaboration on exams is prohibited. Late work will be
penalized. Exams are “open-book”. We will agree on logistics later in the semester, but in
the past we have often done a 24-hour take-home final.
For your presentation, you will choose a formal theory paper and give a 40 minute talk on it.
Presentations will be held towards the end of the semester. If you need suggestions, consider
papers that are on the syllabus but which we end up not doing in class. I will also circulate
a shortlist of other suggested papers. Else you can choose any other formal theory paper out
there! Just run it by us.
For your model sketch, you will write a short paper that tackles an interesting political
science or political economy question using formal theory. The target length is 10 pages
(and no more than 15, unless you are adding to a preexisting project). The ideal format
would be a short introduction (one page), related literature (half a page), model presentation
in 1-2 pages, and results in the remainder. To keep the workload manageable and meet the
length constraint, I’d advise you to focus on a single result (“Proposition 1”) and keep the
model extremely simple and non-general (e.g., only 2 players; only 2 periods; only 2 types;
choose specific parameter values and functional forms to make things easy; etc.). Sometimes
students can’t solve the model they set up; that is OK as long as you set up an interesting
problem and model and followed a reasonable strategy to try and solve it. But the ideal is
to produce a self-contained core of a paper.
READINGS:
There is no single textbook for the course, but there are several great options. If you want
to buy an advanced game theory textbook, the standard reference is “Game Theory”, by
Drew Fudenberg and Jean Tirole. “Game Theory”, by Roger Myerson, and “A Course in
Game Theory”, by Martin Osborne and Ariel Rubinstein are also great books, and par-
ticularly insightful in certain topics (e.g., Myerson’s presentation of sequential equilibrium,
communication, cooperative games, and others). For a more introductory level, see “An In-
troduction to Game Theory”, by Martin Osborne or “Political Game Theory”, by McCarty
and Meirowitz. (We will be in-between these levels throughout the course.) Finally, see the
“Positive Political Theory” books (in particular PPT II) by Austen-Smith and Banks, for
formal positive political theory.
COURSE OUTLINE:
The focus of the course will be on game theory and its applications to politics, without a
particular emphasis on field. Throughout the course, we will cover part of the following
papers/chapters to illustrate applications of the theory to address political problems (papers
with a (+) sign to be included if time allows):
2
“Buying Supermajorities in Finite Legislatures.” American Political Science Review
(2000) pp. 677-681.
2. Vote Buying (+). Eddie Dekel, Matthew O. Jackson, and Asher Wolinsky. ”Vote
buying: General elections.” Journal of Political Economy 116.2 (2008): 351-380. [See
also Dekel, Eddie, Matthew Jackson and Asher Wolinsky. “Vote Buying: Legislatures
and Lobbying”. Quarterly Journal of Political Science (2009) vol 4., pp. 103-128.]
4. Bargaining (+). Daniel Diermeier, Hulya Eraslan and Antonio Merlo, “A Structural
Model of Government.” Econometrica, Vol. 71, No. 1, (Jan., 2003), pp. 27-70.
5. Bargaining (+). Francois, Patrick, Ilia Rainer, and Francesco Trebbi. “How Is Power
Shared in Africa?” No. w18425. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012.
1. Common Values. Feddersen and Pesendorfer. “Convicting the Innocent: The In-
feriority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts”. American Political Science Review (1998) pp.
23-35.
2. Common Values. Duggan, John and Martinelli, Cesar. “A Bayesian Model of Voting
in Juries.” Games and Economic Behavior 37, 259-294 (2001).
3. Common Values. Iaryczower, Matias and Shum, Matt, “The Value of Information
in the Court: Get it Right, Keep it Tight,” with Matthew Shum. American Economic
Review, Vol. 102, No. 1, Feb. 2012 , pp. 202-237.
4. Global Games and Regime Change (+). Stephen Morris and Hyun Song Shin.
“Heterogeneity and Uniqueness in Interaction Games.” (2003).
1. Mechanism Design. Fudenberg and Tirole Book, Ch.7. (7.2, 7.3, 7.4.3, 7.4.4).
3
2. Mechanism Design (+). Alonso, Ricardo, and Niko Matouschek. “Optimal delega-
tion.” Review of Economic Studies 75.1 (2008): 259-293.
4. Bargaining. Dilip Abreu and Faruk Gul. “Bargaining and Reputation”. Economet-
rica, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 85-117.
8. Political Agency (+). Besley and Prat. Handcuffs for the Grabbing Hand? Media
Capture and Government Accountability. American Economic Review (2006) vol. 96
(3) pp. 720-736.