Advertisement

Political selection and the optimal concentration of political power

  • Andreas Grunewald
  • Emanuel HansenEmail author
  • Gert Pönitzsch
Research Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

We study how policy choice and political selection are affected by the concentration of political power. In a setting with inefficient policy gambles, variations in power concentration give rise to a trade-off. On the one hand, power-concentrating institutions allocate more power to the voters’ preferred candidate. On the other hand, they induce the adoption of more overly risky policies and decrease the voters’ capability to select well-suited politicians. We show that full concentration of power is optimal if and only if the conflict of interest between voters and politicians is small. Otherwise, an intermediate level of power concentration is optimal.

Keywords

Elections Constitutional design Selection Asymmetric information 

JEL Classification

D72 D82 H11 

Notes

Supplementary material

References

  1. Armingeon, K., Careja, R., Potolidis, P., Gerber, M., Leimgruber, P.: Comparative Political Data Set III 1990–2009. Institute of Political Science, University of Berne, Bern (2011)Google Scholar
  2. Ashworth, S.: Electoral accountability: recent theoretical and empirical work. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 15(1), 183–201 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. Ashworth, S., Bueno de Mesquita, E.: Unified vs. divided political authority. J. Polit. 79(4), 1372–1385 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. Bagwell, K., Ramey, G.: Oligopoly limit pricing. Rand J. Econ. 22(2), 155–172 (1991)Google Scholar
  5. Barro, R.J.: The control of politicians: an economic model. Publ. Choice 14(1), 19–42 (1973)Google Scholar
  6. Besley, T.: Principled Agents? The Political Economy of Good Government. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)Google Scholar
  7. Besley, T., Smart, M.: Fiscal restraints and voter welfare. J. Publ. Econ. 91(3–4), 755–773 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. Buisseret, P.: “Together or apart”? On joint versus separate electoral accountability. J. Polit. 78(2), 542–556 (2016)Google Scholar
  9. Cheng, C., Li, C.: Laboratories of democracy: policy experimentation under decentralization. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. (forthcoming) (2018)Google Scholar
  10. Cho, I.K., Kreps, D.M.: Signaling games and stable equilibria. Q. J. Econ. 102(2), 179–222 (1987)Google Scholar
  11. Dewan, T., Hortala-Vallve, R.: Electoral competition, control and learning. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 49(3), 923–939 (2019)Google Scholar
  12. Diermeier, D., Merlo, A.: Government turnover in parliamentary democracies. J. Econ. Theory 94(1), 46–79 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. ESS: ESS Round 1: European Social Survey Round 1 Data (2002). Data file edition 6.1. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway - Data Archive and distributor of ESS data (2002)Google Scholar
  14. European Commission: Eurobarometer 62.0 (Oct–Nov 2004). TNS OPINION & SOCIAL, Brussels [Producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4229 Data file Version 1.1.0.  https://doi.org/10.4232/1.10962 (2012)
  15. Ferejohn, J.: Incumbent performance and electoral control. Publ. Choice 50(1), 5–25 (1986)Google Scholar
  16. Fishburn, P.C., Gehrlein, W.V.: Towards a theory of elections with probabilistic preferences. Econometrica 45(8), 1907–1923 (1977)Google Scholar
  17. Fox, J., Stephenson, M.C.: Judicial review as a response to political posturing. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 105(2), 397–414 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. Fox, J., Van Weelden, R.: Partisanship and the effectiveness of oversight. J. Publ. Econ. 94(9–10), 674–687 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. Fu, Q., Li, M.: Reputation-concerned policy makers and institutional status quo bias. J. Publ. Econ. 110, 15–25 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. Ganghof, S., Eppner, S.: Patterns of accountability and representation: why the executive-parties dimension cannot explain democratic performance. Politics 39(1), 113–130 (2019)Google Scholar
  21. Gans, J.S., Smart, M.: Majority voting with single-crossing preferences. J. Publ. Econ. 59(2), 219–237 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. Grossman, G., Helpman, E.: Electoral competition and special interest politics. Rev. Econ. Stud. 63(2), 265–286 (1996)Google Scholar
  23. Grunewald, A., Hansen, E., Pönitzsch, G.: Political selection and the optimal concentration of political power. SSRN Working Paper (2017)Google Scholar
  24. Henisz, W.J.: Polcon 2005 Codebook (2006). http://www.management.wharton.upenn.edu/henisz/POLCON/CODEBOOK_2005.doc. Accessed 24 May 2012
  25. Herrera, H., Morelli, M., Nunnari, S.: Turnout across democracies. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 60(3), 607–624 (2016)Google Scholar
  26. Hindriks, J., Lockwood, B.: Decentralization and electoral accountability: incentives, separation and voter welfare. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 25(3), 385–397 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. Holmström, B.: Managerial incentive problems: a dynamic perspective. Rev. Econ. Stud. 66(1), 169–182 (1999)Google Scholar
  28. Honryo, T.: Risky shifts as multi-sender signaling. J. Econ. Theory 174, 273–287 (2018)Google Scholar
  29. Iaryczower, M., Mattozzi, A.: On the nature of competition in alternative electoral systems. J. Polit. 75(3), 743–756 (2013)Google Scholar
  30. IDEA: Handbook of Electoral System Design. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Stockholm (2004)Google Scholar
  31. ISSP Research Group: International Social Survey Programme 2004: Citizenship I (ISSP 2004). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne, ZA3950 Data file Version 1.3.0 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.4232/1.11372
  32. Keefer, P., Stasavage, D.: The limits of delegation: veto players, central bank independence and the credibility of monetary policy. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 97(3), 407–423 (2003)Google Scholar
  33. Lijphart, A.: Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian & Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries. Yale University Press, New Haven (1984)Google Scholar
  34. Lijphart, A.: Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. Yale University Press, New Haven (1999)Google Scholar
  35. Madison, J.: Federalist No. 57, The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation (1788). Reprinted in Cooke, J.E. (Ed.) The Federalist. Wesleyan, Middletown (1961) Google Scholar
  36. Majumdar, S., Mukand, S.W.: Policy gambles. Am. Econ. Rev. 94(4), 1207–1222 (2004)Google Scholar
  37. Marshall, M.G., Jaggers, K.: Polity IV Project: Dataset Users’ Manual (2010). http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html. Accessed 23 May 2012
  38. Maskin, E., Tirole, J.: The politician and the judge: accountability in government. Am. Econ. Rev. 94(4), 1034–1054 (2004)Google Scholar
  39. Matakos, K., Troumpounis, O., Xefteris, D.: Electoral rule disproportionality and platform polarization. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 60(4), 1026–1043 (2016)Google Scholar
  40. Persson, T., Roland, G., Tabellini, G.: Separation of powers and political accountability. Q. J. Econ. 112(4), 1163–1202 (1997)Google Scholar
  41. Sahuguet, N., Persico, N.: Campaign spending regulation in a model of redistributive politics. Econ. Theory 28(1), 95–124 (2006)Google Scholar
  42. Sala-i-Martin, X.: Cross-sectional regressions and the empirics of economic growth. Eur. Econ. Rev. 38(3–4), 739–747 (1994)Google Scholar
  43. Sala-i-Martin, X.: I just ran two million regressions. Am. Econ. Rev. 87(2), 178–83 (1997)Google Scholar
  44. Saporiti, A.: Power sharing and electoral equilibrium. Econ. Theory 55(3), 705–729 (2014)Google Scholar
  45. Transparency International: Background Paper to the 2004 Corruption Perceptions Index. accessed through (2004). http://www.icgg.org/downloads/FD_CPI_2004.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2012
  46. Tsebelis, G.: Decision making in political systems: veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 25(3), 289–325 (1995)Google Scholar
  47. Tsebelis, G.: Veto Players. How Political Institutions Work. Princeton University Press/Russell Sage Foundation, Princeton (2002)Google Scholar
  48. Vida, P., Honryo, T.: Strategic Stability of Equilibria in Multi-sender Signaling Games. mimeo, New York (2019)Google Scholar
  49. World Bank: World Development Indicators. Sept 2014 (2014). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.1293GDP.PCAP.KD. Accessed 27 Sept 2014

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Business AdministrationGoethe-UniversityFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Applied MicroeconomicsUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  3. 3.Center for Macroeconomic ResearchUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  4. 4.Department of EconomicsHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations