Jon X. Eguia

Citizen Candidates Under Uncertainty

In this paper I add uncertainty about the total vote count to a “citizen candidate” model of representative democracy. I show that in a society with a large electorate, where the outcome of the election is uncertain and where winning candidates receive a large reward from holding office, there will be a two-candidate equilibrium and no equilibria with a single candidate.

Voting Blocs, Party Discipline and Party Formation

I study the strategic incentives to coordinate votes in an assembly. Coalitions form voting blocs, acting as single players and affecting the policy outcome. In an assembly with two exogenous parties I show how the incentives to accept party discipline depend on the types of the agents, the sizes of the parties, and the rules the blocs use to aggregate preferences. In a game of fully endogenous party formation, I find sufficient conditions for the existence of equilibria with one bloc, two blocs, and multiple blocs.

United We Vote

This paper studies the advantages that a coalition of agents obtains by forming a voting bloc to pool their votes and cast them all together. We identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for an agent to benefit from the formation of the voting bloc, both if the agent is a member of the bloc and if the agent is not part of the bloc. We also determine whether individual agents prefer to participate in or step out of the bloc, and we find the different optimal internal voting rules that aggregate preferences within the coalition.

Discrimination and Assimilation

I present a theory of assimilation in a heterogeneous society composed of two groups with distinct social norms and unequal statuses. Members of the group with a relatively disadvantaged status face an incentive to assimilate, embracing the norms of the more advantaged group. The cost of assimilation is endogenous and strategically chosen by the advantaged group to screen those seeking to assimilate. In equilibrium, only highly skilled agents, who generate positive externalities, choose to assimilate. The theory provides a novel explanation of the so called “acting white” phenomenon, in which students from disadvantaged ethnic groups punish their co-ethnics who succeed academically. I show that punishing success and thus raising the cost of acquiring skills needed to assimilate is an optimal strategy by low ability students to keep their more able co-ethnics in the disadvantaged group.

Legislative Bargaining with Endogenous Rules

We study repeated legislative bargaining in an assembly that chooses its bargaining rules endogenously and whose members face an election after each legislative term. An agenda protocol or bargaining rule assigns to each legislator a probability of being recognized to make a policy proposal in the assembly. We predict that the agenda protocol chosen in equilibrium disproportionately favors more senior legislators, granting them greater opportunities to make policy proposals, and it generates an incumbency advantage to all legislators.

Asset Pricing and Asymmetric Reasoning

We test to what extent financial markets trigger comparative ignorance (Fox and Tversky (1995)) when interpreting news, and hence, to what extent such markets instill ambiguity aversion in participants who do not know how to correctly update. Our experiments build on variations of the Monty Hall problem, which, when tested on individuals separately, are well known to generate obstinacy: subjects often refuse to acknowledge that they are wrong. Under comparative ignorance, however, subjects who are not able to correctly solve Month-Hall-like problems should become ambiguity averse. In a financial markets context, we posit that such feeling of comparative ignorance emerges when traders, who do not have the correct solution, face prices that contradict their beliefs. Previous experiments with financial markets have shown that ambiguity aversion makes subjects hold portfolios that are insensitive to prices; subjects instead prefer to hold balanced portfolios, and hence, are not exposed to ambiguity. And because subjects are price-insensitive, they do not contribute to price setting. This led us to hypothesize that, when faced with MontyHall-like problems, (i) there would be subjects whose portfolio decisions are insensitive to prices, (ii) price quality would be inversely related to the proportion of price-insensitive subjects, (iii) price-insensitive subjects tend to choose more balanced portfolios (correcting for mispricing), and (iv) price-insensitive subjects trade less. Our experiments confirm these hypotheses. We do discover, however, the presence of a minority of price-sensitive subjects who simply tend to buy more as prices increase. We interpret the behavior of such subjects as herding, a hitherto unsuspected reaction to comparative ignorance. Altogether, our experiments suggest that cognitive biases may be expressed dierently in a financialWe present a new theory of asset pricing and portfolio choices under asymmetric reasoning, contrast the predictions with those under asymmetric information, and present experimental evidence in favor of our theory. The Efficient Markets Hypothesis and its formal foundation, the Rational Expectations Equilibrium, predict that asymmetric information is irrelevant because prices correctly aggregate all available information. We argue here that asymmetric reasoning is fundamentally different: prices may not reflect all (types of) reasoning because (some) agents who observe prices that cannot be reconciled with their reasoning drop their reasoning while not giving prices the benefit of the doubt, and hence become sufficiently ambiguity averse so that they no longer directly influence prices. We present the results from an experiment, where, through manipulation of aggregate risk, we separately test the price and choice implications of our theory. Consistent with our theory, we find that i) a significant fraction of our subjects become price-insensitive, that ii) mispricing decreases as the fraction of price-sensitive agents increases when there is no aggregate risk, and iii) price-insensitive agents tend to trade to more balanced portfolios when there is aggregate risk.

Cohesion, Insurance and Redistribution

Governments use redistributive policies to favor relatively unproductive economic sectors. Traditional economic wisdom teaches that the government should instead buy out the agents in these sectors, and let them relocate to more productive sectors. We showthat redistribution to a sector whose agents have highly correlated incomes generates an insurance value. Taking this insurance value into account, a buy-out is not sufficient to compensate the agents in the sector for relocating. In fact, it may be efficient for the government to sustain agents in an activity that, while less productive, is subject to correlated income shocks. US data suggests that indeed, sectors that receive transfers are subject to more correlated income shocks than others.

Utility Representations of Risk Neutral Preferences in Multiple Dimensions

I show that in a multidimensional spatial model, if an agent is risk neutral on each side of the policy space away from his/her ideal point, then his/her utility function is linearly decreasing not in the Euclidean, but rather in the city block distance to the ideal policy of the agent.

Equilibrium Selection in Sequential Games with Imperfect Information

Games with imperfect information often feature multiple equilibria, which depend on beliefs off the equilibrium path. Standard selection criteria such as passive beliefs, symmetric beliefs or wary beliefs rest on ad hoc restrictions on beliefs. We propose a new selection criterion that imposes no restrictions on beliefs: we select the action profile that is supported in equilibrium by the largest set of beliefs. We conduct experiments to test the predictive power of the existing and our novel selection criteria in two applications: a game of vertical multi-lateral contracting, and a game of electoral competition. We find that our selection criterion outperforms the other selection criteria.

Challenges to the Standard Euclidean Spatial Model

Spatial models of political competition over multiple issues typically assume that agents’ preferences are represented by utility functions that are decreasing in the Euclidean distance to the agent’s ideal point in a multidimensional policy space. I describe theoretical and empirical results that challenge the assumption that quasiconcave, differentiable or separable utility functions, and in particular linear, quadratic or exponential Euclidean functions, adequately represent multidimensional preferences, and I propose solutions to address each of these challenges.