Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Several earlier attempts at explaining the norm of universalism in Congress rely on a simple expected value comparison between the rewards to legislators of the coalition of the whole as against the uncertainties associated with minimal winning coalitions. Such a comparison, however, fails to model directly the decision processes within a legislature-the game legislators play-and, thus, fails to explain why it is in no member's self-interest to defect from such a norm. Further, the corresponding explanations for universalism can accommodate inefficiency in legislation pork barrel only with additional and ad hoc assumptions or with appeals to secondary group norms. We offer here an alternative model based on constituency motivations that establishes universalism as an optimal individual choice and which accommodates inefficient legislation directly.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Niou et al. (1985) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: