Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Theoretical Politics
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brams, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, T. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Dividing the Indivisible

Procedures for Allocating Cabinet Ministries to Political Parties in a Parliamentary System

Steven J. Brams

Department of Politics, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA steven.brams{at}nyu.edu

Todd R. Kaplan

School of Business and Economics, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4PU, UK Dr{at}ToddKaplan.com

Political parties in Northern Ireland recently used a divisor method of apportionment to choose, in sequence, ten cabinet ministries. If the parties have complete information about each other’s preferences, we show that it may not be rational for them to act sincerely by choosing their most-preferred ministry that is available. One consequence of acting sophisticatedly is that the resulting allocation may not be Pareto-optimal, making all the parties worse off. Another is non-monotonicity – choosing earlier may hurt rather than help a party. We introduce a mechanism, combining sequential choices with a structured form of trading, that results in sincere choices for two parties that avoids these problems. Although there are dif.culties in extending this mechanism to more than two parties, other approaches are explored, such as permitting parties to make consecutive choices not prescribed by an apportionment method. But certain problems, such as eliminating envy, remain.

Key Words: apportionment methods • cabinets • fairness • mechanism design • sequential allocation

Journal of Theoretical Politics, Vol. 16, No. 2, 143-173 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0951629804041118


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Rationality and SocietyHome page
S. J. Brams and D. L. King
Efficient Fair Division: Help the Worst off or Avoid Envy?
Rationality and Society, November 1, 2005; 17(4): 387 - 421.
[Abstract] [PDF]