Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T10:04:04.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revised-Path Dependence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Jenna Bednar ,
Scott E. Page  and
Jameson L. Toole
Jenna Bednar*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, and Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501
Scott E. Page
Affiliation:
Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, and Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501
Jameson L. Toole
Affiliation:
M.I.T. Systems Engineering Division, Cambridge, MA 02139
*
e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we define a class of revised path—dependent processes and characterize their basic properties. A process exhibits revised-path dependence if the current outcome can revise the value of a past outcome. A revision could be a change to that outcome or a reinterpretation. We first define a revised path—dependent process called the accumulation process: in each period, a randomly chosen past outcome is changed to match the current outcome and show that it converges to identical outcomes. We then construct a general class of models that includes the Bernoulli process, the Polya process, and the accumulation process as special cases. For this general class, we show that, apart from knife-edge cases, all processes converge either to homogeneous equilibria or to an equal probability distribution over types. We also show that if random draws advantage one outcome over the other, then the process has a unique equilibrium.

Type
Symposium on Path Dependence
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , Spring 2012 , pp. 146 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Edited by R. Michael Alvarez, John R. Freeman, and John E. Jackson

References

Acemoglu, Daron, and Robinson, James. 2012. The origins or power, prosperity, and poverty: Why nations fail. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
Arthur, Brian. 1994. Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bednar, Jenna, Chen, Yan, Liu, Tracy Xiao, and Page, Scott E. 2011. Experimental evidence of institutional path dependence. University of Michigan manuscript.Google Scholar
Bednar, Jenna, Chen, Yan, Liu, Tracy Xiao, and Page, Scott E. 2012. Behavioral spillovers and cognitive load in multiple games: An experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior 74(1): 12–31.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, and Elman, Colin. 2006. Complex causal relations ad case study methods: The example of path dependence. Political Analysis 14 (3): 250–67.Google Scholar
Brandwein, Pamela. 2011. Rethinking the judicial settlement of reconstruction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cowan, Robin, and Gunby, Philip. 1996. Sprayed to death: Path dependence, lock-in and pest control strategies. Economic Journal 106(436): 521–42.Google Scholar
Crouch, Colin, and Farrell, Henry. 2004. Breaking the path of institutional development? Alternatives to the new determinism. Rationality and Society 16(1): 5–43.Google Scholar
David, Paul. 1985. Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review 75(2): 332–7.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob. 2002. The divided welfare state: The battle over public and private social benefits in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hathaway, Oona. 2001. Path dependence in the law: The course and pattern of legal change in a common law system. Iowa Law Review 86: 602–65.Google Scholar
Jackson, John E., and Kollman, Ken. 2010. A formulation of path dependence with an empirical example. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5(3): 257–89.Google Scholar
Liebowitz, J. Stan, and Margolis, Stephen E. 1990. The fable of the keys. Journal of Law and Economics 33: 1–27.Google Scholar
Liebowitz, J. Stan, and Margolis, Stephen E. 2002. The economics of Qwerty: Papers by Stan Liebowitz and Stephen Margolis, ed. Lewin, P. New York: MacMillan NYU Press.Google Scholar
North, Douglas C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Page, Scott E. 2006. Path dependence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1: 87–115.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2000. Path dependence, increasing returns, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review 94(2): 251–67.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. Forthcoming 2012. Precedent. In Routledge companion to the philosophy of law, ed. Marmor, Andrei. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vergne, Jean-Philippe, and Durand, Rodolphe. 2010. The missing link between the theory and empirics of path dependence: Conceptual clarification, testability issue, and methodological implications. Journal of Management Studies 47(4): 736–59.Google Scholar