Advertisement

Who should you vote for? Empirical evidence from Portuguese local governments

  • Ricardo Duque GabrielEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The economic literature considers voters quasi-rational agents that care about maximizing their individual welfare when deciding on who to vote for. Voters believe that, once a politician is elected, his or her characteristics will affect policy outcomes and consequently their private welfare. To assess whether mayors’ characteristics influence municipalities’ financial performance, I use a dataset composed of 278 Portuguese mainland municipalities from 2003 to 2016. I find that mayors’ age, education, occupation, and tenure influence the level of public investment, tax revenues, debt, and budget balances. Although most of the Portuguese voters only consider candidates’ political affiliation when deciding on who to vote for, my estimates do not show any significant impact of this characteristic on the financial indicators analyzed. Therefore, these results question the way Portuguese vote by arguing that, when voting for local government representatives, they should care about other characteristics among candidates besides their political affiliation.

Keywords

Elections Local governments Mayors Portugal Public finance Voting 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge my supervisor at Tilburg University, Louis Raes, as I am gratefully indebted for his valuable guidance. The article also benefited from insightful comments from Ana Sofia Pessoa, Filipe Correia, Francisco Veiga, Linda Veiga, Raffaella Santolini, Vasco Santos, two anonymous referees, the editor Paulo Guimarães, and participants of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Portuguese Economic Journal. Any remaining errors are mine.

Supplementary material

10258_2019_158_MOESM1_ESM.tex (45 kb)
(TEX 44.5 KB)

References

  1. Aidt TS, Veiga FJ, Veiga LG (2011) Election results and opportunistic policies: a new test of the rational political business cycle model. Public Choice 148 (1):21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alesina AF, Troiano U, Cassidy T (2015) Old and young politicians. Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  3. Almeida MAP (2013) O Poder Local do Estado Novo à Democracia: Presidentes de câmara e governadores civis, 1936–2012. LeyaGoogle Scholar
  4. Aragón FM, Pique R (2015) Does politician’s experience matter? Evidence from peruvian local governments. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  5. Baleiras RN, Santos V (2000) Behavioral and institutional determinants of political business cycles. Public Choice 104(1):121–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Besley T, Reynal-Querol M (2011) Do democracies select more educated leaders? Am Polit Sci Rev 105(03):552–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Besley T, Montalvo JG, Reynal-Querol M (2011) Do educated leaders matter? Econ J 121(554):205–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdain JAM (2008) Voto Estratégico em portugal: nas eleições legislativas de 2005. PhD thesis, Universidade de LisboaGoogle Scholar
  9. Bouvet F, Dall’Erba S (2010) European regional structural funds: how large is the influence of politics on the allocation process? JCMS: J Common Mark Stud 48 (3):501–528Google Scholar
  10. Cameron AC, Gelbach JB, Miller DL (2011) Robust inference with multiway clustering. J Bus Econ Stat 29(2):238–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Casaburi L, Troiano U (2015) Ghost-house busters: the electoral response to a large anti–tax evasion program. Q J Econ 131(1):273–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chattopadhyay R, Duflo E (2004) Women as policy makers: evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica 72(5):1409–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Congleton RD, Zhang Y (2013) Is it all about competence? The human capital of us presidents and economic performance. Constit Polit Econ 24(2):108–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Hoyos RE, Sarafidis V (2006) Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. Stata J 6(4):482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Denney NW, Palmer AM (1981) Adult age differences on traditional and practical problem-solving measures. J Gerontol 36(3):323–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Driscoll JC, Kraay AC (1998) Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Rev Econ Stat 80(4):549–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dur R, Staal K (2008) Local public good provision, municipal consolidation, and national transfers. Reg Sci Urban Econ 38(2):160–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferreira F, Gyourko J (2009) Do political parties matter? evidence from us cities. Q J Econ 124(1):399–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferreira F, Gyourko J (2014) Does gender matter for political leadership? The case of us mayors. J Public Econ 112:24–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fiva JH, Folke O, Sørensen RJ (2016) The power of parties: evidence from close municipal elections in norway. Scand J EconGoogle Scholar
  21. Foucault M, Madies T, Paty S (2008) Public spending interactions and local politics. empirical evidence from french municipalities. Public Choice 137(1-2):57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freier R, Thomasius S (2016) Voters prefer more qualified mayors, but does it matter for public finances? Evidence for germany. Int Tax Public Financ 23(5):875–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gagliarducci S, Paserman MD (2011) Gender interactions within hierarchies: evidence from the political arena. Rev Econ Stud p rdr046Google Scholar
  24. Glass DP (1985) Evaluating presidential candidates: who focuses on their personal attributes? Public Opin Q 49(4):517–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoechle D (2007) Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. Stata J 7(3):281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones BF, Olken BA (2005) Do leaders matter? National leadership and growth since world war ii. Q J Econ 120(3):835–864Google Scholar
  27. Lodge M, Steenbergen MR, Brau S (1995) The responsive voter: campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. Am Polit Sci Rev 89(02):309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lopes MC, Peralta S (2016) I like the way you move: tax competition in portuguese municipal corporate income tax. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  29. Martins P, Correia L (2015) Determinantes dos desvios orçamentais nos municípios portugueses. Revista Portuguesa de Estudos Regionais (39)Google Scholar
  30. McDermott ML (2005) Candidate occupations and voter information shortcuts. J Polit 67(1):201–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Migueis M (2012) Local government fiscal policies: left-wing vs. Right-wing portuguese municipalities. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  32. Monacelli D, Pazienza MG, Rapallini C (2016) Municipality budget rules and debt: is the italian regulation effective? Public Budg Financ 36(3):114–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Müller A, Storesletten K, Zilibotti F (2016) The political color of fiscal responsibility. J Eur Econ Assoc 14(1):252–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. OECD (2018) Subnational governments in oecd countries: key data. OECD reportGoogle Scholar
  35. Petersen MA (2009) Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: comparing approaches. Rev Financ Stud 22(1):435–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pettersson-Lidbom P (2008) Do parties matter for economic outcomes? A regression-discontinuity approach. J Eur Econ Assoc 6(5):1037–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Popkin SL (1994) The reasoning voter: communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  38. Porto A, Porto N (2000) Fiscal decentralization and voters’choices as control. J Appl Econ 3(1)Google Scholar
  39. Ribeiro NA, Jorge S (2015) Political-ideological circumstances and local authorities’ debt: evidence from portuguese municipalities. Contrib Econ 9(02):155–170Google Scholar
  40. Rogers T, Fox CR, Gerber A, Shafir E (2013) Rethinking why people vote. The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy 91Google Scholar
  41. Samuelson PA (1954) The pure theory of public expenditure. Rev Econ Stat: 387–389Google Scholar
  42. Schuknecht L (2000) Fiscal policy cycles and public expenditure in developing countries. Public Choice 102(1):113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shafir E (2013) The behavioral foundations of public policy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thompson SB (2011) Simple formulas for standard errors that cluster by both firm and time. J Financ Econ 99(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tiebout CM (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. J Polit Econ 64(5):416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Veiga LG, Pinho MM (2007) O poder local e a europa. Portugal: 20 Anos de Integração EuropeiaGoogle Scholar
  47. Veiga LG, Veiga FJ (2005) Eleitoralismo nos municípios portugueses. Análise Social 40(177):865–889Google Scholar
  48. Veiga LG, Veiga FJ (2007) Political business cycles at the municipal level. Public Choice 131(1):45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Veiga LG, Veiga FJ (2014) Determinants of portuguese local governments’ indebtedness. NIPE Working Papers Series (16):1–32Google Scholar
  50. Veiga LG, Veiga FJ (2019) The effects of electoral incentives on fiscal policy: evidence from a legislative change at the local government level. J Law Econ Org 35Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ISEG – Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations