nep-cdm New Economics Papers
on Collective Decision-Making
Issue of 2017‒04‒23
seven papers chosen by
Stan C. Weeber, McNeese State University

  1. A Model of Focusing in Political Choice By Salvatore Nunnari; Jan Zapal
  2. Taste-Based Discrimination against Nonwhite Political Candidates: Evidence from a Natural Experiment By Soltas, Evan J.; Broockman, David
  3. Who Wants Democratic Innovations, and Why? By Claudia Landwehr; Thorsten Faas
  4. Technological gatekeepers, regional inventor networks and inventive performance By Julie Le Gallo; Anne Plunket
  5. The Europeanization of Health Care Coverage Decisions: EU-Regulation, Policy Learning and Cooperation in Decision-Making By Katharina Böhm; Claudia Landwehr
  6. One Year of Government 34 of Israel: Leading Parties’ Positions on Key Issues By Yanovskiy Konstantin; Zatkovetsky Ilia; Entov Asya
  7. Coworkers, Makers and Hackers in the city : Reinventing policies, corporate strategies and citizenship ? By Amélie Bohas; Annie Camus; Ignasi Capdevilla; Aurore Dandoy; Julie Fabbri; Anna Glaser; Stephan Haefliger; Pierre Laniray; Anouk Mukherjee; Fabrice Periac; Caroline Scotto; Viviane Sergi; François-Xavier De Vaujany; Valérie Andrade; Stephen Andre; Nina Barbier; Alexandra Bernhardt; Thomas Bargone-Fisette; Maud Berthier; Emmanuel Bertin; Alexandre Blein; Serge Bolidum; Camille Bosqué; Svenia Busson; Hélène Bussy-Socrate; Sabine Carton; Jonathan Chaloux; Caroline Alexandra Chapain; Nicolas Dacher; François Delorme; Aurélien Denaes; Aurélie Dudezert; Philippe Eynaud; Stéphanie Fargeot; Ingrid Fasshauer; Marie-Hélène Féron; Emma France; Olivier Germain; Albane Grandazzi; Wifak Guedanna; Imad Haraoubia; Martine Huyon; Julien Jourdan; Marie Hasbi; Magda David Hercheui; Andrea Jimenez Cisneros; Pierre-Marie Langlois; Alexandre Largier; Pierre Lemonnier; Maude Leonard; Annelise Lepage; Frédérique-Rose Maléfant; Eliel Markman; Hazel Marroquin; Janet Merkel; Sophie Mistral; Nathalie Mitev; Sarah Mokaddem; Nuno Oliveira; Montserrat Pareja-Eastaway; Roser Pujadas; Jules Scordel; Lydia Tetyczka; Julie Tixier; Tukka Toivonen; David Vallat; Philippine Vidal; Igor Vujic; Yingqin Zheng

  1. By: Salvatore Nunnari; Jan Zapal
    Abstract: This paper develops a theoretical model of voters' and politicians' behavior based on the notion that voters focus disproportionately on, and hence overweight, certain attributes of policies. We assume that policies have two attributes and that voters focus more on the attribute in which their options differ more. First, we consider exogenous policies and show that voters' focusing polarizes the electorate. Second, we consider the endogenous supply of policies by office-motivated politicians who take voters' distorted focus into account. We show that focusing leads to inefficient policies, which cater excessively to a subset of voters: social groups that are larger, have more distorted focus, are more moderate, and are more sensitive to changes in a single attribute are more in uential. Finally, we show that augmenting the classical models of voting and electoral competition with focusing can contribute to explain puzzling stylized facts as the inverse correlation between income inequality and redistribution or the backlash effect of extreme policies. JEL Codes: D03, D72, D78 Keywords: Focus; Attention; Salience; Political Polarization; Probabilistic Voting Model; Electoral Competition; Behavioral Political Economy; Income Inequality; Redistribution
    Date: 2017
  2. By: Soltas, Evan J. (University of Oxford); Broockman, David (Stanford University)
    Abstract: We exploit a natural experiment to study voter taste-based discrimination against nonwhite political candidates. In Illinois Republican presidential primary elections, voters do not vote for presidential candidates directly. Instead, they vote delegate-by-delegate for delegate candidates listed as bound to vote for particular presidential candidates at the Republican nominating convention. To maximize their support for their preferred presidential candidate, voters must vote for all that candidate's delegates. However, some delegates' names imply they are not white. Incentives for statistical discrimination against nonwhite delegates are negligible, as delegates have effectively no discretion, and taste-based discrimination against them is costly, as it undermines voters' preferred presidential candidates. Examining within-presidential candidate variation in delegate vote totals in primaries from 2000-2016, we estimate that about 10 percent of voters do not vote for their preferred presidential candidate's delegates who have names that indicate the delegates are nonwhite, indicating that a considerable share of voters act upon racially-discriminatory tastes. This finding is robust to multiple methods for measuring delegate race, to controls for voters' possible prior information about delegates, to ballot order, and to other possible confounds we consider. Heterogeneity across candidates and geographies is also broadly consistent with taste-based theories.
    JEL: D72 J15
    Date: 2017–02
  3. By: Claudia Landwehr (Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz); Thorsten Faas (Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz)
    Abstract: Commentators and academic experts alike have voiced increasing anxieties over the state and future of representative democracy in recent years. Their concern lends momentum to calls for democratic innovations, such as (more) direct democracy and deliberative citizen forums. We argue that the institutional design of decision making processes as well as each of these proposed reforms affect resulting decisions and have distributive consequences, rendering any innovation more attractive to some citizens than to others. At the same time, the different opportunities for participation that alternative processes and institutions offer (e.g. voting vs. deliberation) may have more appeal to some citizens than others, which poses a potential threat to the idea of democratic equality. However, research providing empirical findings concerning these questions is still very rare. On the basis of data from the German GESIS Panel, we seek to explore determinants of preferences over democratic innovations, focusing on the effects of individual characteristics and potential instrumental preferences. In light of our findings we conclude that while the call for democratic innovations should be taken seriously and the potentials of citizens participation should be used to revitalize democracy, any reform should be assessed in light of the old question “who benefits?”.
    Date: 2017
  4. By: Julie Le Gallo (AgroSup Dijon - Institut National Supérieur des Sciences Agronomiques, de l'Alimentation et de l'Environnement); Anne Plunket (BETA - Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée - Université de Strasbourg - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)
    Abstract: The paper investigates, in a regional context, the impact of gatekeepers on the quality of inventions at the patent team level based on a social network analysis. Given the lack of consensus in the literature, we explore two definitions of gatekeepers and distinguish their impact from external stars. Our results show that gatekeepers indeed influence the quality of the patents to which they participate. However, the quality of their patents is reduced if gatekeepers and their team members are located in the same region compared to multi-location teams and this holds for both definitions. External stars do not contribute to inventive quality even if they work within multi-location teams. Finally, inventor teams benefit from socially close gatekeepers located within their region, even if they have no gatekeepers within their team.
    Keywords: teams,global pipelines,inventor networks,technological gatekeepers,patent quality
    Date: 2016–11–22
  5. By: Katharina Böhm (Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz); Claudia Landwehr (Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz)
    Abstract: The paper presents two cases of Europeanization in health policy an area that has so far been viewed as hardly affected by European integration. We show that even in the less likely case of coverage decision-making, some traces of Europeanization can be found. This is possible because the Commission has a strong interest in further integration in this field and all other relevant actors have motives to at least engage in cooperation. Our first case deals with the EU’s transparency directive and shows that this has forced member states to establish formal decision-making procedures, but did not result in a harmonization of decision-making processes and institutions, which is why the Commission has fostered cooperation and networking. The second case looks at the Europeanization of health technology assessment, demonstrating how cooperation and policy learning take place and how the Commission has successfully promoted the emergence of a new policy field.
    Keywords: Europeanization, policy convergence, health care reimbursement, health technology assessment
    Date: 2017
  6. By: Yanovskiy Konstantin (Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy); Zatkovetsky Ilia (Samuel Neaman Institute for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology); Entov Asya (Ariel University of Samaria)
    Abstract: The paper explores the leading Israeli parties' positions (the right-wing mainly) on the key issues. The set of "key issues" is our choice and contains Judicial (legal system) reform, Judea and Samaria status, 2nd amendment right and self-defense, other security issues, economic policies. The paper is focused primarily on the most important issues like Kfar Duma arson case (investigation was accompanied by grave violation of suspected persons' rights), terror wave, Gas deal, new legislation weakening real estate owner's rights for the developers' benefit and more. The principal issue of the paper is the parties' commitments to their pre-election promises and informal mandates
    Keywords: Party political platform, consistent position, Right-Left cleavages, ideology
    JEL: D72 D73
    Date: 2016
  7. By: Amélie Bohas (AMU ECO - Aix-Marseille Université - Faculté d'économie et de gestion - AMU - Aix Marseille Université); Annie Camus (UQAM - Université du Québec à Montréal); Ignasi Capdevilla (Paris School of Business); Aurore Dandoy (Management & Organisation - DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris-Dauphine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Julie Fabbri (EMLYON Business school - EMLYON Business School); Anna Glaser (NBS - Novancia Business School - CCIP IDF - Chambre de commerce et d’industrie - Paris-Île de France); Stephan Haefliger (Université Grenoble Alpes - Grenoble 2); Pierre Laniray (IAE Poitiers - Institut d'Administration des Entreprises - Poitiers - Université de Poitiers); Anouk Mukherjee (Management & Organisation - DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris-Dauphine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Fabrice Periac (IPAG - IPAG Business School - Ipag); Caroline Scotto (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - MINES ParisTech - École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris - PSL - PSL Research University - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Viviane Sergi (UQAM - Université du Québec à Montréal); François-Xavier De Vaujany (Management & Organisation - DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris-Dauphine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Valérie Andrade (Chercheur Indépendant); Stephen Andre (Chercheur Indépendant); Nina Barbier (Chercheur Indépendant); Alexandra Bernhardt (Technische Universität Chemnitz); Thomas Bargone-Fisette (UQAM - Université du Québec à Montréal); Maud Berthier (Mairie de Paris); Emmanuel Bertin (Orange Labs [Paris] - Telecom Orange); Alexandre Blein (LATTS - Laboratoire Techniques, Territoires et Sociétés - UPEM - Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Serge Bolidum (DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris-Dauphine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Camille Bosqué (UR2 - Université Rennes 2); Svenia Busson (Chercheur Indépendant); Hélène Bussy-Socrate (WBS - Warwick Business School - University of Warwick [Coventry]); Sabine Carton (Université Grenoble Alpes - Grenoble 2); Jonathan Chaloux (Chercheur Indépendant); Caroline Alexandra Chapain (Centre for Urban and Regional Studies - University of Birmingham [Birmingham]); Nicolas Dacher (ECE Paris); François Delorme ((Axe de recherche : Systèmes dÍnformation) - CERAG - Centre d'études et de recherches appliquées à la gestion - UPMF - Université Pierre Mendès France - Grenoble 2 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Aurélien Denaes (Chercheur Indépendant); Aurélie Dudezert (IAE Poitiers - Institut d'Administration des Entreprises - Poitiers - Université de Poitiers); Philippe Eynaud (GREGOR - Groupe de Recherche en Gestion des Organisations - UP1 - Université Panthéon-Sorbonne - Institut d'Administration des Entreprises (IAE) - Paris); Stéphanie Fargeot (Management & Organisation - DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris-Dauphine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Ingrid Fasshauer (DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris-Dauphine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Marie-Hélène Féron (Chercheur Indépendant); Emma France (Chercheur Indépendant); Olivier Germain (ESG - Ecole des Sciences de la Gestion - UQAM - Université du Québec à Montréal); Albane Grandazzi (Management & Organisation - DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris-Dauphine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Wifak Guedanna (LSE - Department of Management - London School of Economics and Political Science - LSE - London School of Economics and Political Science); Imad Haraoubia (Université Grenoble Alpes - Grenoble 2); Martine Huyon (TRIANGLE - Triangle : action, discours, pensée politique et économique - ENS Lyon - École normale supérieure - Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UJM - Université Jean Monnet [Saint-Etienne] - Institut d'Études Politiques [IEP] - Lyon - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Julien Jourdan (Management & Organisation - DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris-Dauphine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Marie Hasbi (Université Paris 2 - Panthéon-Assas); Magda David Hercheui (UCL School of Management - University College of London [London]); Andrea Jimenez Cisneros (Royal Holloway [University of London]); Pierre-Marie Langlois (Chercheur Indépendant); Alexandre Largier (Société nationale des Chemins de Fer français - SNCF); Pierre Lemonnier (CREDO - Centre de Recherche et de Documentation sur l'Océanie - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Maude Leonard (UQAM - Université du Québec à Montréal); Annelise Lepage (Chercheur Indépendant); Frédérique-Rose Maléfant (Chercheur Indépendant); Eliel Markman (Management & Organisation - DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris-Dauphine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Hazel Marroquin (Cass Business School - City University London); Janet Merkel (City University London); Sophie Mistral (Chercheur Indépendant); Nathalie Mitev (King‘s College London [London]); Sarah Mokaddem (UBO - Université de Bretagne Occidentale); Nuno Oliveira (Tilburg University [Tilburg] - Netspar); Montserrat Pareja-Eastaway (UAB - Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona [Barcelona]); Roser Pujadas (LSE - Department of Management - London School of Economics and Political Science - LSE - London School of Economics and Political Science); Jules Scordel (Ecole Centrale Paris - Ecole Centrale Paris); Lydia Tetyczka (Percolab); Julie Tixier (IRG - Institut de Recherche en Gestion - UPEM - Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée - UPEC UP12 - Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne - Paris 12); Tukka Toivonen (University College of London [London]); David Vallat (TRIANGLE - Triangle : action, discours, pensée politique et économique - ENS Lyon - École normale supérieure - Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UJM - Université Jean Monnet [Saint-Etienne] - Institut d'Études Politiques [IEP] - Lyon - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Philippine Vidal (PSL - PSL Research University); Igor Vujic (PSL - PSL Research University); Yingqin Zheng (Royal Holloway [University of London])
    Abstract: The world of work is changing. A century after moving from an agriculture-centered world to an Industrial one, from self-employed workers to salaried employees, our modern economies are slowly transitioning towards a new model: based on simultaneous collaboration and competition, the boundaries of contemporary organizations are blurring; information technologies are allowing individuals and companies to set base away from cities; shared working spaces are triggering new forms of collaborations between individuals and corporations. This White Paper aims at diagnosing key institutional tensions related to new work practices in the city, and putting forward questions and general propositions likely to overcome these tensions. The idea is to analyze how new collaborative communities and collaborative logics (of coworkers, hackers, makers, fabbers, and teleworkers) and more traditional collective activity and modes of decision making (of the city and corporations in the city) can jointly contribute to the co-production of harmonious new ways of life and new ways of working. Reinventing joint public policies, corporate strategies and citizenship appear here as a key stake where usual dichotomies between private-public, collaborative-non-collaborative economy, traditional citizens and hacktivists need to be overcome. We thus identify in this document a set of controversies around four strong political issues both for the city and the field of management, linked to the emergence of collaborative spaces: o Topic 1. Space, territories, and public policy on collaborative communities in the city; o Topic 2. Collaborative communities and their roles in education in the city; o Topic 3. Business models and their communication in the context of collaborative spaces and collaborative communities; o Topic 4. Collaborative spaces and their roles in innovation and entrepreneurial dynamics at the level of the city Beyond our controversies, we underline three paradoxes which should be at the heart of new questions for policy-makers, hacktivists, actors of collaborative movements, and citizens (distinctions which may become less and less relevant in the years to come): o Social versus economic orientations of both the city and the collaborative communities it can host; o Critical/revolutionary versus more incremental relationships between cities, organizations, societies, collaborative communities, and new work practices; o Local territory (district/proximate area) grounded versus broader city-oriented or connectivity related issues about collaborative movement and new work practices. To balance these tensions, we elaborate seven general areas of questions and propositions for all stakeholders: o The generalization of infra-organization (physical collaborative platforms); o The emergence of “ ‘inclusive lab’ labels” (elaborated and managed by collaborative communities themselves); o A renewed academic presence in the city and in the country-side (with more virtual, distributed and ‘experiential’ logics); o Ephemeral and mobile labs managed jointly by public, collaborative and private stakeholders; o “Open open” innovation in public and semi-public spaces of the city; o Rise of mega-spaces for creativity in the city; o Development of a global infrastructure for coworkers, mobile workers and teleworkers. These are directions we see as particularly promising to manage the tensions, paradoxes and stakes explicated by our controversies. We hope that these questions and propositions will inspire both academics, politicians, hacktivists and entrepreneurs for future collaborations on the study and joint transformation of public policies, corporate strategies, and citizenship.
    Keywords: city,corporate strategies,public policies,politics,new work practices,global infrastructures for coworking,“open open” innovation,infra-organization,‘inclusive lab’ label,mega-creative spaces,renewed academic presence in the city
    Date: 2016–12–16

This nep-cdm issue is ©2017 by Stan C. Weeber. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.