Working Paper: CEPR ID: DP16057
Authors: Benoit S. Y. Crutzen; Hideo Konishi; Nicolas Sahuguet
Abstract: Under closed-list proportional representation, a party's electoral list determines the order in which legislative seats are allocated to candidates. When candidates differ in their ability, parties face a trade-off between competence and incentives. Ranking candidates in decreasing order of competence ensures that elected politicians are most competent. Yet, party list create incentives for candidates that may push parties not to rank candidates in decreasing competence order. We examine this trade-off in a game-theoretical model in which parties rank their candidate on a list, candidates choose their campaign effort, and the election is a team contest for multiple prizes. We show that the trade-off between competence and incentives depends on candidates' objective and the electoral environment. In particular, parties rank candidates in decreasing order of competence if candidates value enough post-electoral high offices or media coverage focuses on candidates at the top of the list.
Keywords: team contest; incentives; proportional representation; closed list
JEL Codes: No JEL codes provided
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| Candidate Competence (D79) | Candidate Ranking (D79) |
| Media Coverage (M38) | Candidate Ranking (D79) |
| Candidate Ranking (D79) | Candidate Effort (D79) |
| Candidate Effort (D79) | Electoral Success (K16) |
| Media Coverage (M38) | Candidate Effort (D79) |
| Ideological Polarization (D72) | Candidate Ranking (D79) |