The Banks Set and the Uncovered Set in Budget Allocation Problems

Part of the Studies in Choice and Welfare book series (WELFARE)


We examine how a society chooses to divide a given budget among various regions, projects or individuals. In particular, we characterize the Banks set and the Uncovered Set in such problems. We show that the two sets can be proper subsets of the set of all alternatives, and at times are very pointed in their predictions. This contrasts with well-known “chaos theorems,” which suggest that majority voting does not lead to any meaningful predictions when the policy space is multidimensional.


Social Choice Condorcet Winner Public Project Feasible Allocation Distributive Politics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Austen-Smith, D. and J. S. Banks (1999) Positive Political Theory I: Collective Preference Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Banks, J. S. (1985) Sophisticated voting outcomes and agenda control. Social Choice and Welfare, 1: 295–306.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Banks, J. S. and G. Bordes (1988) Voting games, indifference and consistent sequential choice rules. Social Choice and Welfare, 5: 31–44.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Banks, J. S., J. Duggan, and M. Le Breton (2002) Bounds for mixed strategy equilibria and the spatial model of elections. Journal of Economic Theory, 103: 88–105.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Banks, J. S., J. Duggan, and M. Le Breton (2003) Social choice and electoral competition in the general model of elections. Journal of Economic Theory, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Bell, C. E. (1981) A random voting graph almost surely has a Hamiltonian cycle when the number of alternatives is large. Econometrica, 49: 1597–1603.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Bordes, G. (1983) On the possibility of some reasonable consistent majoritarian choice: some positive results. Journal of Economic Theory, 31: 122–132.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Bordes, G., M. Le Breton, and M. Salles (1992) Gillies and Miller’s subrelations of a relation over an infinite set of alternatives: general results and applications to voting games. Mathematics of Operations Research, 17: 509–518.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Cox, G. W. (1987) The uncovered set and the core. American Journal of Political Science, 31: 408–422.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    De Donder, P. (2000) Majority voting solution concepts and redistributive taxation. Social Choice and Welfare, 17: 601–627.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Duggan, J. and M. Le Breton (2001) Mixed refinements of Shapley’s saddles and weak tournaments. Social Choice and Welfare, 18: 65–78.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Dutta, B., M. O. Jackson, and M. Le Breton (2002) Endogenous agenda formation. Social Choice and Welfare, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Dutta, B. and J. F. Laslier (1999) Comparison functions and choice correspondences. Social Choice and Welfare, 16: 513–532.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Epstein, D. (1997) Uncovering some subtleties of the uncovered set: social choice theory and distributive politics. Social Choice and Welfare, 15: 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Farquharson, R. (1969) Theory of Voting New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Feld, S., B. Grofman, R. Hartley, M. Kilgour, and N. R. Miller (1987) The uncovered set in spatial voting games. Theory and Decision, 23: 129–155.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Ferejohn, J., M. Fiorina, and R. D. McKelvey (1987) Sophisticated voting and agenda independence in the distributive politics setting. American Journal of Political Science, 31: 169–194.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Fey, M. (2004) Choosing from a large tournament. Social Choice and Welfare, 23: 275–294.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Hartley, R. and M. Kilgour (1987) The geometry of the uncovered set Mathematical Social Sciences, 14: 175–183.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Koehler, D. H. (1990) The size of the yolk: computations for odd and even-numbered committees. Social Choice and Welfare, 7: 231–245.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Laslier, J. F. (1997) Tournament Solutions and Majority Voting Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Laslier, J. F. and N. Picard (2002) Distributive politics and electoral competition. Journal of Economic Theory, 103: 106–130.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Lizzeri, A. and N. Persico (2001) The provision of public goods under alternative electoral incentives. American Economic Review, 91: 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Lockwood, B. (2002) Distributive politics and the costs of centralization. Review of Economic Studies, 69: 313–338.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    McKelvey, R. D. (1976) Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control. Journal of Economic Theory, 12: 472–482.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    McKelvey, R. D. (1979) General conditions for global intransitivities in formal voting models. Econometrica, 47: 1085–1112.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    McKelvey, R. D. (1986) Covering, dominance and institution-free properties of social choice. American Journal of Political Science, 30: 283–314.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    McKelvey, R. D. and Niemi, R. G. (1978) A multistage game representation of sophisticated voting for binary procedures. Journal of Economic Theory, 18: 1–22.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Miller, N. R. (1980) A new solution set for tournament and majority voting: further graph-theoretical approaches to the theory of voting. American Journal of Political Science, 24: 68–96.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Miller, N. R., B. Grofman, and S. L. Feld (1990a) The structure of the Banks set. Public Choice, 66: 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Miller, N. R., B. Grofman, and S. L. Feld (1990b) Cycle avoiding trajectories, strategic agendas, and the duality of memory and foresight: an informal exposition. Public Choice, 64: 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Ordeshook, P. (1993) The development of contemporary political theory. In W. A. Barnett, M. J. Hinich, and N. J. Schofield (eds) Political Economy: Institutions, Competition, and Representation Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Penn, E. M. (2001) A distributive N-amendment game with endogenous agenda formation. Mimeo. California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Penn, E. M. (2003) The Banks set in infinite spaces. Mimeo. Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Persson, T. and G. Tabellini (2000) Political Economics Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Plott, C. (1967) A notion of equilibrium and its possibility under majority rule. American Economic Review, 57: 787–806.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Schwartz, T. (1972) Rationality and the myth of the maximum. Nous, 6: 97–117.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Shepsle, K. and B. Weingast (1984) Uncovered sets and sophisticated voting outcomes with implications for agenda institutions. American Journal of Political Science, 28: 49–74.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Stiglitz, J. E. (1988) Economics of the Public Sector (2nd Ed) New York: Norton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WarwickWarwick
  2. 2.California Institute of TechnologyUSA
  3. 3.University of Toulouse 1Toulouse

Personalised recommendations