Pivot Versus Signaling in Collective Bargaining

Jidong Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2429028
2014-01-01
SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract:We analyze a two-period collective bargaining game with asymmetric information and a persistent agenda setter. Voters have private information about their preferences over one-dimensional policy. The setter has a chance to alter the proposal if the initial one fails. When the revised proposal fails, the status-quo policy is implemented. We identify a difficulty of establishing an informative equilibrium, where voters use a cut-point strategy and partially reveal their preferences in the initial voting: a voter who dislikes reform may pretend to support the initial proposal so as to induce a more greedy proposal, which is more likely to fail. However, we show that the agenda-setting power makes the potential sabotage incentive dominated. Hence, an informative equilibrium exists, where the revised proposal is more compromising when the initial one receives more negative votes. The model demonstrates the effect of the agenda-setting power on extracting information in a dynamic and collective-decision environment.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?