This paper contributes to the study of gridlock by analyzing a model of repeated two-party bargaining in which status quo agreements and proposal power are in general both endogenous. I introduce a key object, the foresight horizon, to index the number of downstream agreements agents incorporate into their decision-making on current policy. Gridlock occurs in equilibrium if and only if foresight is limited. I relate equilibrium behavior within the specific setting of legislative bargaining to observed phenomena in public policy-making. While there is short-run correlation of future policy with the status quo, policy converges in the long-run of equilibrium play to an invariant distribution, independent of where it begins. I also demonstrate that policy polarization — the gap between parties’ actionable proposals — is increasing in their foresight.
Limited Foresight and Gridlock in Bargaining
* I would like to thank two anonymous referees and the editors of QJPS, for their constructive feedback, which has helped strengthen both the exposition and analysis in the paper. I am also grateful to Leeat Yariv, Wolfgang Pesendorfer, Matias Iaryczower, Pietro Ortoleva, Alessandro Lizzeri, Tasos Kalandrakis, Antonio Niccolo, Stephen Coate, Sylvain Chassang, Adam Meirowitz, Gleason Judd, and Steven Callander for their feedback and encouragement. My thanks also to audiences from the University of Manchester and the Princeton political economy and micro-economic theory seminars for their helpful comments.
Parihar P (2025), "Limited Foresight and Gridlock in Bargaining". Quarterly Journal of Political Science, Vol. 20 No. 1 pp. 71–100, doi: https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00022032
Download citation file:
