Advertisement

Coercive Redistribution and the Franchise: A Preliminary Investigation Using Computable General Equilibrium Modelling

Chapter
Part of the International Studies in Economics and Econometrics book series (ISEE, volume 28)

Abstract

In this paper we use a computable general equilibrium model of a competitive political economy, applied to data for the United Kingdom about 1870, to explore the relationship between the franchise and coercive redistribution in representative democracies. The counterfactual experiments presented suggest that a simple general equilibrium story, which has often been told, may in fact explain why the dramatic increase in male suffrage that occurred in the second half of the nineteenth century did not lead to much greater redistribution from rich owners of capital to the poor. The simulations indicate that as high capital incomes are taxed, the adverse equilibrium consequences of reduced capital accumulation lead even the poor who benefit substantially from public expenditures to support greater reliance on the taxation of labour incomes.

Methodologically, the paper illustrates how a computable general equilibrium model incorporating expected vote maximizing political parties and an endogenous fiscal system can be constructed and calibrated. Given the highly aggregated structure of the model and the nature of the data employed, the most important contribution of the paper may be the guidance it offers to those who wish to pursue further the general equilibrium consequences of the franchise.

Keywords

Public Choice Labour Income Computable General Equilibrium Model Social Account Matrix Political Equilibrium 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Coughlin, Peter, Dennis Mueller and Peter Murrell. “A Model of Electoral Competition with Interest Groups”.Economics Letters32, (April 1990): 307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dahl, Robert.Democracy and Its Critics. Yale University Press, 1989. Enelow, James and Melvin Hinich. “A General Probabilistic Spatial Theory of Elections”.Public Choice61 no.2 (1989):101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Feinstein, C.H.National Income Expenditure and Output of the United Kingdom,1855–1965. Cambridge University Press, 1972Google Scholar
  4. Flora, Peter et. al.State Economy and Society inWestern Europe 1815–1975. Volume 1, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1983Google Scholar
  5. Hansen, Terje and Tjalling Koopmans. “On the Definition and Computation of a Capital Stock Invariant Under Optimization”.Journal of Economic Theory5 (1972): 487–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hettich, Walter and Stanley L. Winer. “Basic Issues in the Positive Political Economy of Income Taxation”. In Sijbren Cnossen and Richard Bird (eds.).The Personal Income Tax: Phoenex from the Ashes? North-Holland, 1990: 265–289Google Scholar
  7. Ingberman, Dan and Robert Inman. “The Political Economy of Fiscal Policy”. In Paul Hare (ed.).Surveys in Public Sector Economics. Basil Blackwell, 1988: 105–160Google Scholar
  8. Janowitz, Morris.The Last Half-Century. University of Chicago Press, 1978Google Scholar
  9. Kristov, Lorenzo, Peter Lindert and Robert McCelland. “Pressure Groups and Redistribution”. Institute of Intergovernmental Affairs, University of California, Davis, Revised December 1990Google Scholar
  10. Lindbeck, Assar. “Redistribution Policy and the Expansion of the Public Sector”.Journal of Public Economics29 no.13 (1985): 309–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lindert, Peter. “Modern Fiscal Redistribution”. Unpublished, University of California-Davis, January 1990Google Scholar
  12. Lindert, Peter. “Modern Fiscal Redistribution: A Preliminary Essay”. Agricultural History Center, University of California-Davis, Working Paper No. 55, June 1989Google Scholar
  13. Lindert, Peter. “Unequal English Wealth Since 1670”.Journal of Political Economy. 94 no.6 (1986): 1127–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Macpherson, C.B.The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford University Press, 1977Google Scholar
  15. Mueller, Dennis.Public Choice II. Cambridge University Press, 1989Google Scholar
  16. Musgrave, Richard.Fiscal Systems. Yale University Press, 1969Google Scholar
  17. North, Douglas and Barry Weingast. “Constitutions and Commitment: Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England”. unpublished, 1989Google Scholar
  18. Peltzman, Sam. “The Growth of Government”.Journal of Law and Economics23 (1980): 209–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Plumb, J.H. “The Growth of the Electorate In England from 1600 to 1715”Past and Present45 (1969): 90–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pommerehne, Werner (1980). “Public Choice Approaches to Explain Fiscal Redistribution”. In KW. Roskamp (ed.).Public Choice and Public Finance. Paris: Cujas, 1980: 169–190Google Scholar
  21. Rutherford, Thomas, and Stanley Winer. “Endogenous Policy in a Computational General Equilibrium Framework”. University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics Working Paper 9007, Revised May 1990Google Scholar
  22. Rutherford, Thomas.General Equilibrium Modelling with MPS/GE. Department of Economics, University of Western Ontario, 1988Google Scholar
  23. Shorrocks, Anthony. “UK Wealth Distribution: Current Evidence and Future Prospects”. In E.N. Wolff (ed.).International Comparisons of the Distribution of Household Wealth. Clarendon Press, 1987Google Scholar
  24. Stigler, George. “Director’s Law of Public Income Redistribution”.Journal of Law and Economics13 (1970): 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Usher, Dan.The Welfare Economics of Predation and Waste. Unpublished manuscript, Queen’s University, 1989Google Scholar
  26. Williamson, Jeffrey.Did British Capitalism Breed Inequality? Allen and Unwin, 1985Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations