Advertisement

Economics of Governance

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 389–412 | Cite as

Does enfranchisement affect fiscal policy? Theory and empirical evidence on Brazil

  • Rodrigo SchneiderEmail author
  • Diloá Athias
  • Mauricio Bugarin
Original Paper
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

This paper studies the effect of political participation on public spending at the local level in Brazil. In particular, we look at the phased-in implementation of electronic voting in the late 1990s—which enfranchised poorer voters by decreasing the number of invalid votes—to identify the causal effect of political participation on public spending. We build a theoretical political economy model which allows voters to cast, not purposefully, an invalid vote, and show that when poorer voters’ likelihood of casting a valid vote increases, public social spending increases as well. We test this prediction empirically using a difference-in-differences model where municipalities using electronic voting constitute our treatment group. We find that an increase of 1 percentage point in the valid vote to turnout ratio for state representatives increases health spending by 1.8%; education by 1.4%; public employment by 1.25%; intergovernmental transfers by 1%; and local taxes by 2.6%.

Keywords

Electronic voting Political participation Social public spending Difference-in-differences 

JEL Classification

H21 H4 H5 H7 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the co-editor, Marko Koethenbuerger, and the anonymous referee for their insightful comments and suggestions. We also thank Rebecca Thornton, Daniel Bernhardt, Daniel McMillen, Jake Bowers, José Cheibub for their detailed feedback and support. This paper also benefited from comments by participants at the 9th Midwest Graduate Student Summit in Applied Economics, Regional and Urban Studies; the 2016 Midwest International Economic Development Conference; the 2016 LACEA-LAMES Annual Meeting; the 2017 North American Summer Meeting of the Econometric Society; the 2017 European Meeting of the Econometric Society; the 45th ANPEC Annual Conference and the UIUC graduate seminars. All errors are our own.

References

  1. Alesina AF, Giuliano P (2011) Preferences for redistribution. Handb Soc Econ 1:93–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angrist JD, Krueger AB (1999) Empirical strategies in labor economics. Handb Labor Econ 3:1277–1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berinsky A (2005) The perverse consequences of electoral reform in the United States. Am Polit Res 33(4):471–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berinsky A, Burns M, Traugott M (2001) Who votes by mail?: A dynamic model of the individual-level consequences of voting-by-mail systems. Public Opin Q 65(2):178–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhatt R, Dechter E, Holden R (2019) Registration costs and voter turnout. https://sites.google.com/site/edechter/research
  6. Blais A, Young R (1999) Why do people vote? An experiment in rationality. Public Choice 99(1–2):39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braconnier C, Dormagen J, Pons V (2017) Voter registration costs and disenfranchisement: experimental evidence from France. Am Polit Sci Rev 111(3):584–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brollo F, Nannicini T (2012) Tying your enemy’s hands in close races: the politics of federal transfers in Brazil. Am Polit Sci Rev 106(4):742–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown DS, Hunter W (1999) Democracy and social spending in Latin America, 1980–92. Am Polit Sci Rev 93(4):779–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bugarin M (1999) Vote splitting as insurance against uncertainty. Public Choice 98(1):153–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bugarin M (2003) Vote splitting, reelection and electoral control: towards a unified model. Soc Choice Welf 20(1):137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bugarin M, Marciniuk F (2017) Strategic partisan transfers in a federation: evidence from a new Brazilian database. J Appl Econ 20(2):211–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bugarin M, Portugal A (2015) Should voting be mandatory? The effect of compulsory voting rules on candidates’ political platforms. J Appl Econ 18(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cascio EU, Washington E (2013) Valuing the vote: the redistribution of voting rights and state funds following the voting rights act of 1965. Q J Econ 129(1):379–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Downs A (1957) Who votes by mail? An economic theory of democracy. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Edlin A, Gelman A, Kaplan N (2007) Voting as a rational choice: why and how people vote to improve the well-being of others. Ration Soc 19(3):293–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feddersen T, Sandroni A (2006) A theory of participation in elections. Am Econ Rev 96(4):1271–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferejohn J (1986) Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice 50(1):5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferreira IFS, Bugarin M (2007) Transferências voluntárias e ciclo político-orçamentário no federalismo fiscal brasileiro. Revista Brasileira de Economia 61(3):271–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fujiwara T (2015) Voting technology, political responsiveness, and infant health: evidence from Brazil. Econometrica 83(2):423–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fujiwara T, Meng K, Vogl T (2016) Habit formation in voting: evidence from rainy elections. AEJ Appl Econ 8(4):160–188Google Scholar
  22. Hassell H, Settle J (2017) The differential effects of stress on voter turnout. Polit Psychol 38(3):533–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hidalgo FD (2012) Renovating democracy: the political consequences of election reforms in post-war Brazil. Dissertation, UC BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  24. Hodler R, Luechinger S, Stutzer A (2015) The effects of voting costs on the democratic process and public finances. AEJ Econ Policy 7(1):141–171Google Scholar
  25. Hoffman M, Len G, Lombardi M (2017) Compulsory voting, turnout, and government spending: evidence from Austria. J Public Econ 145:103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Husted TA, Kenny LW (1997) The effect of the expansion of the voting franchise on the size of government. J Polit Econ 105(1):54–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kleven HJ, Landais C, Saez E, Schultz E (2014) Migration and wage effects of taxing top earners: evidence from the foreigners’ tax scheme in Denmark. Q J Econ 129(1):333–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindert PH (2004) Growing public: volume 1, the story: social spending and economic growth since the eighteenth century. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lott J (2009) Non-voted ballots, the cost of voting, and race. Public Choice 138(1):171–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meltzer AH, Richard SF (1981) A rational theory of the size of government. J Polit Econ 89(5):914–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mendes M, Miranda RB, Cosio FB (2008) Transfêrencias Intergovernamentais no Brasil: Diagnóstico e Proposta de Reforma. Consultoria Legislativa do Senado Federal, Textos Para Discussão 40Google Scholar
  32. Mueller DC, Stratmann T (2003) The economic effects of democratic participation. J Public Econ 87(9):2129–2155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Novaes LM (2018) Disloyal brokers and weak parties. Am Polit Sci Rev 62(1):84–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ricker W, Ordeshook P (1968) A theory of the calculus of voting. Am Polit Sci Rev 62(1):25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneider R, Senters K (2018) Winners and losers of the ballot: electronic vs. traditional paper voting systems in Brazil. Latin Am Polit Soc 60(2):41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schneider R, Athias D, Bugarin M (2019) Electronic voting and public spending: the impact of enfranchisement on federal budget amendments in Brazil. J Appl Econ (accepted) Google Scholar
  37. Schram A, Sonnemans J (1996) Why people vote: experimental evidence. J Econ Psychol 17(4):417–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schram A, Van Winden F (1991) Why people vote: free riding and the production and consumption of social pressure. J Econ Psychol 12(4):575–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsSkidmore CollegeSaratoga SpringsUSA
  2. 2.Development PathwaysOrpingtonUK
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of BrasiliaBrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations