To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results ✕ Clear filters

A Spatial Theory of News Consumption and Electoral Competition

Review of Economic Studies 2008 75(3), 699-728
We characterize the optimal editorial positions of the media in a model in which the media influence both voting behaviour and party policies. Political parties are less likely to choose partisan policies when more voters consume informative news. When there are two media outlets, each should be slightly biased relative to its audience in order to attract voters with relatively extreme views. Voter welfare is typically higher under a duopoly than under a monopoly. Two media outlets under joint ownership may provide more diverse viewpoints than two independent ones, but voter welfare is not always higher.

Unravelling of Dynamic Sorting

Review of Economic Studies 2005 72(4), 1057-1076
We consider a two-sided, finite-horizon search and matching model with heterogeneous types and complementarity between types. The quality of the pool of potential partners deteriorates as agents who have found mutually agreeable matches exit the market. When search is costless and all agents participate in each matching round, the market performs a sorting function in that high types of agents have multiple chances to match with their peers. However, this sorting function is lost if agents incur an arbitrarily small cost in order to participate in each round. With a sufficiently rich type space, the market unravels as almost all agents rush to participate in the first round and match and exit with anyone they meet.

Deliberating Collective Decisions

Review of Economic Studies 2018 85(2), 929-963
We present a dynamic model of sequential information acquisition by a heterogeneous committee. At each date, agents decide whether to vote to adopt one of two alternatives or continue to collect more information. The process stops when a qualified majority vote for an alternative. Three main insights emerge from our analysis and are consistent with an array of stylized facts regarding committee decision making. First, majority rule is more vulnerable than super-majority rules to the disproportionate influence of impatient committee members. Second, more diverse preferences, more patient members, or more unanimous decision voting rules lead to lengthier deliberation and more accurate decisions. Finally, balanced committees unanimously prefer to delegate deliberation power to a moderate chairman rather than be governed by a rule such as unanimity.