Matias Iaryczower is Associate Professor of Politics at Princeton University, and an affiliate of the Research Program in Political Economy. He received his Ph.D in Economics from UCLA in 2005, and was Assistant Professor of Economics at the California Institute of Technology 2005-10. His research uses game theory and empirical methods to study how institutions and strategic considerations shape collective decision-making in courts, legislatures, and elections. [305 Fisher Hall Princeton University Princeton NJ,. 08544 (609) 258-1018 ]
- Ph.D. in Economics. University of California, Los Angeles. May, 2005.
- M.A. in Economics. Universidad de San Andres (Argentina). August,1998.
- Lic. in Economics. Universidad de Buenos Aires (Argentina). April, 1998.
- Associate Professor of Politics, Princeton University. Jul. 2015 - Present.
- Assistant Professor of Politics, Princeton University. Jul. 2010 - Jul. 2015.
- Assistant Professor of Economics, California Institute of Technology. Jul. 2005 - Jul. 2010.
Selected Working Papers
We consider a dynamic process of coalition formation in which a principal bargains sequentially with a group of n agents. We show that when the principal's willingness to pay is high, giving bargaining power to the agents can induce delay and be detrimental to their welfare. This occurs in spite of the lack of informational asymmetries or discriminatory offers.
We consider a dynamic model of an incumbent politician running for reelection to estimate the relative value of office to policy for US senators seeking reelection. We use the estimates of the model to quantify how career concerns and policy preferences affect electoral accountability and advertising in competitive and uncompetitive elections.
- "Delegation with Strings Attached: Underfunding a Biased Agent", with Nemanja Antic.
We characterize the optimal contract in a principal-agent relationship when the principal can decide both the direction and implementation scale of a policy.
Selected Publications & Forthcoming
"Can Words Get in the Way? The Effect of Deliberation in Collective Decision-Making", with Xiaoxia Shi and Matt Shum. Online Appendix. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 126, No.2, 2018, pp. 688-734.
We estimate a model of voting with incomplete information in which committee members (judges in the US courts of appeals) can communicate before voting. We compare the probability of mistakes with deliberation with a counterfactual of no communication. We find that deliberation can be useful when judges tend to disagree ex ante and their private information is relatively imprecise; otherwise, it tends to reduce the effectiveness of the court.
"Competing for Loyalty: The Dynamics of Rallying Support", with Santiago Oliveros. American Economic Review, Vol.107, No.10, October 2017, pp.2990-3005. Online Appendix. Slides.
We consider a class of dynamic collective action problems in which a principal uses transfers to rally the support of a group of agents, in a context in which agents decisions are sequential and irreversible. We show that whenever the principals provide value to the members of the group, introducing competition from a second principal reduces agents' welfare.
"Power Brokers: Middlemen in Legislative Bargaining", with Santiago Oliveros. Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 162, March 2016, pp. 209-236. Online Appendix.
We consider a model of decentralized bargaining in legislatures. We show that some parties can endogenously emerge as brokers in equilibrium, transferring resources and voting rights between two parties that wouldn't negotiate directly with one another.
"More than Politics: Ability and Ideology in the British Appellate Committee", with Gabriel Katz. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, Vol. 32 (1), 2016, pp. 61-93. Online Appendix.
We show that a model of judicial behavior that accounts for differences in ability and ideology among justices explains the decisions of the UK Lords of Appeal remarkably well, and improves the fit of the ideological model.
"What does it Take for Congress to Enact Good Policies? Unpacking Institutions and Electoral Concerns", with Gabriel Katz. Economics & Politics, Vol 28 (1), March 2016, pp. 79-104. Online Appendix.
We estimate an empirical model of voting in Congress that accounts for uncertainty and private information about the quality of the proposal. We show that seniority and uncompetitive elections lead to higher ideological rigidity and curtail the role of information in policy-making.
- "Voting in the Bicameral Congress: Large Majorities as a Signal of Quality", with Gabriel Katz and Sebastian Saiegh. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, Vol. 29, No. 5, Oct 2013, pp. 957-991. (Winner of the 2013 Oliver E. Williamson prize for the best article in Law, Economics and Organization). Supp.Material Appendix.
We estimate a model of voting in Congress that allows for dispersed information about the quality of proposals. The results highlight the effects of bicameralism on policy outcomes. In equilibrium, the Senate imposes an endogenous supermajority rule of about four-fifths on members of the House.
- "On the Nature of Competition in Alternative Electoral Systems", with Andrea Mattozzi. Journal of Politics, Vol. 75, No. 3, July 2013, pp. 743-756. Online Appendix.
We consider a model of electoral competition with free entry, ideological differentiation and campaign spending. We show that proportional elections induce more candidates, competing less aggressively in campaign spending, than majoritarian elections.
- "To Elect or to Appoint? Bias, Information, and Responsiveness of Bureaucrats and Politicians", with Garret Lewis and Matt Shum. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 97, Jan 2013, pp. 230-244. Slides.
Justices that are shielded from voters' influence on average (i) have better information, (ii) are more likely to change their preconceived opinions about a case, and (iii) make less mistakes than their elected counterparts.
- "The Value of Information in the Court. Get it Right, Get it Tight", with Matt Shum. American Economic Review, Vol. 102, No. 1, Feb. 2012 , pp. 202-237(36).
We estimate an equilibrium model of decision-making in the Court that takes into account both private information and ideological differences between justices. We find that in roughly one out of two cases, justices' prior beliefs and ideological biases are overpowered by case-specific information.
- "The Pro-Competitive Effect of Campaign Limits in Non-Majoritarian Elections", with Andrea Mattozzi. Economic Theory, Vol. 49, No. 3, Mar. 2012, pp. 591-619. Working Paper version w/Additional Results.
Spending caps and compulsory voting can be pro-competitive in non-majoritarian electoral systems, leading to a larger number of parties contesting the election.
- "Contestable Leadership: Party Leaders as Principals and Agents". Quarterly Journal of Political Science, Vol. 3, No.3, October 2008, pp 203-225. Working Paper version with additional results.
Party discipline is endogenously determined by backbenchers' beliefs about the extent of support to the leader within the party. We show that rewards that can be distributed publicly and on the spot (as opposed to promises of future benefits) are necessary for the leader to be powerful.
- "Judicial Lobbying: The Politics of Labor Law Constitutional Interpretation", with Pablo T. Spillerand Mariano Tommasi. American Political Science Review, vol. 100, No. 1, Feb. 2006, Pp. 85-97.
We provide conditions for judicial decisions to be sensitive to legislative lobbying, and find that lobbying falls the more divided the legislature is on the relevant issues. We apply this framework to analyze supreme court labor decisions in Argentina.
- "Judicial Independence in Unstable Environments", with Pablo T. Spiller and Mariano Tommasi. American Journal of Political Science, Vol.46, No.4., Oct.2002, pp. 699-716.
We examine the independence of Argentina's Supreme Court. We show that the probability of voting against the government increases the less aligned a justice is with the President, and falls the stronger the control of the President over the legislature.
Other Working Papers
"Money in Judicial Politics: Individual Contributions and Collective Decisions", with Matt Shum. R&R, Rand Journal of Economics.
We show that campaign Contributions have a large effect on the behavior of individual judges -- affecting the probability that they vote to overturn and the probability that they vote incorrectly -- but have a small effect on the decisions and effectiveness of the Court.
- "Strategic Voting in Sequential Committees". Under Revision.
We consider strategic voting in sequential committees in a common value setting with incomplete information.
Work In Progress
- "Intertemporal Discrimination in Sequential Contracting", with Santiago Oliveros.
- "Sequential Contributions to Multiple Joint Projects", with Santiago Oliveros.
- "Dynamic Competition in Presidential Elections", with Gabriel Katz and Gabriel Lopez Moctezuma.
- "The Causal Effect of Campaign Contributions on Legislators' Voting Behavior", with Gabriel Lopez Moctezuma.
- Korhan Kocak (main advisor): Political Economy.
- Romain Ferrali (com. member): Comparative Politics.
- Ted Enamorado (com. member): Quantitative Methods / Comparative Politics.
- Amanda Kennard (com. member): International Relations.
- Sondre Solstad (com. member): Comparative Politics.
- Noam Reich (com. member): Comparative Politics.
- Brendan Cooley (com. member): International Relations, Formal and Quantitative Methods.
- Dan Gibbs (com. member): American Politics, Formal Theory.
- Gabriel Lopez Moctezuma (main advisor): Political Economy / Quantitative Methods (Cowles Foundation PostDoc at Yale / AP at Caltech)
- Jidong Chen (com. member): Formal Theory / Comparative Politics (Postdoc, Wallis Institute of Political Economy, U. of Rochester).
- Peter Buisseret (com. member): Formal Theory / Comparative Politics (Asst. Prof., Harris School of Public Policy, U. of Chicago).