Public Choice

, Volume 172, Issue 1–2, pp 1–22 | Cite as

Quadratic voting and the public good: introduction

Article

Abstract

This introduction to the Public Choice special issue on “quadratic voting (QV) and the public good” provides an opinionated narrative summary of the contents and surveys the broader literature related to QV. QV is a voting rule, proposed by one of us Weyl (Quadratic vote buying. http://goo.gl/8YEO73, 2012), Lalley and Weyl (Quadratic voting. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2003531, 2016) building off earlier work by Groves and Ledyard (Econometrica 45(4):783–810 1977a), Hylland and Zeckhauser (A mechanism for selecting public goods when preferences must be elicited, Kennedy School of Government Discussion Paper D, 70, 1980), where individuals buy as many votes as they wish by paying the square of the votes they buy using some currency. An appreciation of the history of research in the field suggests that QV is uniquely practically relevant compared to the other approximately Pareto-efficient mechanisms economists have proposed for collective decisions on public goods. However, it faces a number of sociological and ethical concerns regarding how a political system organized around QV would achieve the efficiency aims stated in abstract theory and whether the pure aggregate income-maximizing definition of efficiency QV optimizes in its simplest form is desirable. The papers in this volume flesh out and formalize these concerns, but also provide important responses in two ways: by suggesting domains where they are unlikely to be applicable (primarily related to survey research of various kinds) and versions of QV (using an artificial currency) that maintain many of QV’s benefits while diffusing the most important critiques. Together this work suggests both a practical path for applying QV in the near-term and a series of research questions that would have to be addressed to broaden its application.

Keywords

Quadratic voting Collective decisions Survey research Welfare criteria Market design 

JEL Classifications

B21 D47 D61 D63 D71 

References

  1. Arrow, K. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Attiyeh, G., Franciosi, R., & Isaac, R. M. (2000). Experiments with the pivot process for providing public goods. Public Choice, 102(1–2), 95–114.Google Scholar
  3. Bowen, H. R. (1943). The interpretation of voting in the allocation of economic resources. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 58(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Budish, E. (2011). The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Journal of Political Economy, 119(6), 1061–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cárdenas, J. C., Mantilla, C., & Zárate, R. D. (2014). Purchasing votes without cash: Implementing quadratic voting outside the lab. http://www.aeaweb.org/aea/2015conference/program/retrieve.php?pdfid=719.
  6. Clarke, E. H. (1971). Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice, 11(1), 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duverger, M. (1959). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state trans B. and R. North. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  8. Feddersen, T., & Pesendorfer, W. (1996). The swing voter’s curse. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 408–424.Google Scholar
  9. Feddersen, T., & Pesendorfer, W. (1997). Voting behavior and information aggregation in elections with private information. Econometrica, 65(5), 1029–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feddersen, T., & Pesendorfer, W. (1998). Convicting the innocent: The inferiority of unanimous jury verdicts under strategic voting. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goeree, J. K., & Zhang, J. (Forthcoming). One man, one bid. Games and Economic Behavior. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2016.10.003.
  12. Groves, T. (1973). Incentives in teams. Econometrica, 41(4), 617–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Groves, T., & Ledyard, J. (1977a). Optimal allocation of public goods: A solution to the free rider problem. Econometrica, 45(4), 783–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Groves, T., & Ledyard, J. (1977b). Some limitations of demand-revealing processes. Public Choice, 29(2S), 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haley, R. I., & Case, P. B. (1979). Testing thirteen attitude scales for agreement and brand discrimination. Journal of Marekting, 43(4), 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamilton, D. L. (1968). Personality attributes associated with extreme response style. Psychological Bulletin, 69(3), 192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hausman, J. (2012). Contingent valuation: From dubious to hopeless. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirschman, A. O. (1982). Shifting involvements: Private interests and public action. Oxford: Martin Robertson.Google Scholar
  19. Hylland, A., & Zeckhauser, R. (1980). A mechanism for selecting public goods when preferences must be elicited, Kennedy School of Government Discussion Paper D, 70.Google Scholar
  20. Laine, C. R. (1977). Strategy in point voting: A note. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(3), 505–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lalley, Steven P., & Weyl, E. Glen (2016). Quadratic voting. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2003531.
  22. Mailath, G. J., & Postlewaite, A. (1990). Asymmetric information bargaining problems with many agents. Review of Economic Studies, 57(3), 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McLennan, A. (1998). Consequences of the Condorcet Jury Theorem for beneficial information aggregation by rational agents. American Political Science Review, 92(2), 413–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.Google Scholar
  25. Mueller, D. C. (1973). Constitutional democracy and social welfare. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(1), 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mueller, D. C. (1977). Strategy in point voting: Comment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(3), 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ober, J. (2013). Democracy’s wisdom: An Aristotelian middle way for collective judgment. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 104–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Petit, P. (2012). Analytical philosophy. In R. Goodin, P. Pettit, & T. Pogge (Eds.), A companion to contemporary political philosophy (pp. 5–35). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Posner, E., & Weyl, E. G. (2014). Quadratic voting as efficient corporate governance. University of Chicago Law Review, 81(1), 251–272.Google Scholar
  30. Posner, E., & Weyl, E. G. (2015). Voting squared: Quadratic voting in democratic politics. Vanderbilt Law Review, 68(2), 441–499.Google Scholar
  31. Roberts, D. J. & Postelwaite, A. (1976). The incentives for price-taking behavior in large exchange economies. Econometrica, 44(1):115–127Google Scholar
  32. Roth, A. E. (2008). What have we learned from market design? Economic Journal, 118(527), 285–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), 387–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tideman, T. N., & Tullock, G. (1976). A new and superior process for making social choices. Journal of Political Economy, 84(6), 1145–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tuck, R. (2012). History. In R. Goodin, P. Pettit, & T. Pogge (Eds.), A companion to contemporary political philosophy (pp. 69–87). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. The Journal of Finance, 16(1), 8–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weyl, E. G. (2012). Quadratic vote buying. http://goo.gl/8YEO73.
  38. Willig, R. (1976). Consumer’s surplus without apology. American Economic Review, 66(4), 589–597.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Chicago Law SchoolChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Microsoft ResearchNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Economics and Law SchoolYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations