Skip to main content

Fiscally stable income distributions under majority voting, Lorenz curves and bargaining sets

  • Chapter
Advances in Mathematical Economics

Part of the book series: Advances in Mathematical Economics ((MATHECON,volume 8))

Abstract

We explore two variants of the Bargaining Set in a simple majority game on income distributions in order to understand the apparent stability of tax schedules in democratic societies, despite the fact that the core of such games is empty (no majority Condorcet winner). Those variants are sharper than in the literature (Mas-Colell (1989), Shitovitz (1989), Zhou (1994)), by requiring that counterobjections try to guarantee their initial income levels to all members of the minority who stand to lose in an objection. A first variant defines as usual an income disbribution to be stable if there is no objection against it that is “justified”, i.e. for which there is no counterobjection satisfying the above requirement. A second variant allows objecting majorities to look one more step ahead. An objection is “weakly justified” if, whenever there is a counterobjection, the objecting majority can beat it while guaranteeing their income levels to all of its members. An income distribution is strongly stable if there is no weakly justified objection against it.

These two variants generate sharper solution sets than when applied to large market games as in Mas-Colell (1989), Shitovitz (1989). Stable income distributions can indeed be characterized by their degrees of inequality. An income distribution is stable if and only if its Lorenz curve has no point in common with the graph C of f: [1/2,1] → [0,1], with f(b) = 1 − 1/(2b), for b > 1/2. It is strongly stable if and only if it is the egalitarian one.

Paper prepared for the Third International Conference on Mathematical Analysis in Economic Theory, Research Center for Mathematical Economics, Keio University, Tokyo, December 20–22, 2004, and for the Second International Conference on Economic Theory, Institute of Economic Research, Kyoto University, Kyoto, December 17–18,2004. Financial support of both institutions is gratefully acknowledged. I had useful conversations with Thibault Gajdos, Stéphane Gauthier and Guy Laroque while doing the research work toward this paper. Comments and suggestions from participants to the conferences in Tokyo and Kyoto, as well as to seminars at CREST, GREQAM, Marseille and GREDEG, Sophia Antipolis, are gratefully acknowledged. I am also grateful to the referee, whose comments and suggestions generated significant improvements of the exposition of the paper. The usual caveat applies. I am grateful for the efficient typing of Nadine Guedj.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aumann, R., Maschler, M.: The bargaining set for cooperative games. In: Advances in Game Theory (M. Dresher, L.S. Shapley, A.W. Tucker eds.). pp.443–476 Princeton University Press, Princeton 1964

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bucovetsky, S.: Choosing tax rates and public expenditure levels using majority rule. Journal of Public Economics 46, 113–131 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cukierman, A., Meltzer, A.H.: A political theory of progressive income taxation. In: Meltzer, A., Cukierman, A., Richard, S.F.: Political Economy. Ch. 5 Oxford University Press, Oxford 1991

    Google Scholar 

  4. Davis, M., Maschler, M.: Existence of stable payoff configurations for cooperative games: Abstract. Bulletin of American Mathematical Society 69, 106–108 (1963)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Davis, M., Maschler, M.: Existence of stable payoff configurations for cooperative games. In: Essays in Mathematical Economics in Honor of Oskar Morgenstern (M. Shubik ed.). pp.39–52 Princeton University Press, Princeton 1967

    Google Scholar 

  6. De Donder, P., Hindriks, J.: The politics of progressive income taxation with incentive effects. Journal of Public Economics 87, 2491–2505 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dutta, B., Ray, D., Sengupta, K., Vohra, R.: A consistent bargaining set. Journal of Economic Theory 49, 93–112 (1989)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Einy, E., Holzman, R., Monderer, D.: On the least core and the Mas-Colell bargaining set. Games and Economic Behavior 28, 181–188 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Epstein, D.: Uncovering some subtleties of the uncovered set: Social choice theory and distributive politics. Social Choice and Welfare 15, 81–93 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gottschalk, P., Smeeding, T.: Empirical evidence on income inequality in industrialized countries. Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper 154, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, NY (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hindriks, J.: Is there a demand for income tax progressivity? Economics Letters 73, 43–50 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Marhuenda, F., Ortuño-Ortín, I.: Income taxation, uncertainty and stability. Journal of Public Economics 67, 285–300 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mas-Colell, A.: An equivalence theorem for a bargaining set. Journal of Mathematical Economics 18, 129–139 (1989)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Piketty, T.: Dynamic voting equilibrium, political conservatism and income redistribution. DELTA Working Paper 9310, Paris (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Roberts, K.: Voting over income tax schedules. Journal of Public Economics 8, 329–340 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shitovitz, B.: The bargaining set and the core in mixed markets with atoms and an atomless sector. Journal of Mathematical Economics 18, 377–383 (1989)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Snyder, J., Kramer, G.: Fairness, self-interest, and the politics of the progressive income tax. Journal of Public Economics 36, 197–230 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhou, L.: A new bargaining set of an N-person game and endogenous coalition formation. Games and Economic Behavior 6, 512–526 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grandmont, JM. (2006). Fiscally stable income distributions under majority voting, Lorenz curves and bargaining sets. In: Kusuoka, S., Yamazaki, A. (eds) Advances in Mathematical Economics. Advances in Mathematical Economics, vol 8. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/4-431-30899-7_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics