The article compares two models of lobby influence on policy choice: The Grossman and Helpman (1994) contribution‐schedules model and a negotiation between the lobbies and the government summarized by a Nash‐bargaining function. The literature uses the models interchangeably because they imply the same equilibrium policy. We show that particular assumptions about bargaining power and disagreement utility in the Nash‐bargaining solution are required for the models to lead to the same equilibrium payments and utilities. This implies that the models usually imply different sets of lobbies if lobby formation is an endogenous decision, such that the equilibrium policies also differ.
Economics & Politics – Wiley
Published: Jan 1, 2018
Keywords: ; ; ; ;
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera