The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Policy Reform, Political Economy of

  • Sharun W. Mukand
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2383

Abstract

Policymakers face political constraints that make enacting reform difficult. Since the late 1980s economists have developed a framework to analyse the deeper political underpinnings of policy inefficiency. This article develops a framework for delineating the key findings of this literature. It then briefly sketches out the role of institutions in facilitating policy reform.

Keywords

Adjustment costs Commitment Compensation Democracy Distributional conflict Government failure Institutional design New political economy Policy persistence Policy reform Public choice Rational choice political economy Rent seeking Reputation Stabilization policy Time inconsistency 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Bibliography

  1. Acemoglu, D. 2003. Why not a political Coase theorem? Social conflict, commitment and politics. Journal of Comparative Economics 31: 620–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acemoglu, D., S. Johnson, and J. Robinson. 2004. Institutions as the fundamental cause of long run growth. In Hand book of economic growth, ed. P. Aghion and S. Durlauf. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  3. Alesina, A., and A. Drazen. 1991. Why are stabilizations delayed? American Economic Review 81: 1170–1188.Google Scholar
  4. Besley, T. 2006. Principled agents: The political economy of good government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Besley, T., and S. Coate. 1998. Sources of inefficiency in a representative democracy: A dynamic analysis. American Economic Review 88: 139–156.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J., and G. Tullock. 1962. The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coate, S., and S. Morris. 1999. Policy persistence. American Economic Review 89: 1327–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dixit, A. 2004. Lawlessness and economics: Alternative modes of governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dixit, A., and J. Londregan. 1996. The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. Journal of Politics 58: 1132–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duflo, E., and R. Chattopadhyay. 2004. Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica 72: 1409–1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernandez, R., and D. Rodrik. 1991. Resistance to reform: Status-quo bias in the presence of individual-specific uncertainty. American Economic Review 81: 1146–1155.Google Scholar
  12. Grossman, G., and E. Helpman. 1994. Protection for sale. American Economic Review 84: 833–850.Google Scholar
  13. Jain, S., and S.W. Mukand. 2003. Redistributive promises and the adoption of economic reform. American Economic Review 93: 256–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kydland, F., and E. Prescott. 1977. Rules rather than discretion: The time inconsistency of optimal plans. Journal of Political Economy 85: 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Majumdar, S., and S.W. Mukand. 2004. Policy gambles. American Economic Review 94: 1207–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Robinson, J.A. 1998. Theories of bad policy. Policy Reform 1: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rodrik, D. 1996. Understanding economic policy reform. Journal of Economic Literature 34: 9–41.Google Scholar
  18. Rodrik, D., A. Subramanian, and F. Trebbi. 2004. Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. Journal of Economic Growth 9: 131–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharun W. Mukand
    • 1
  1. 1.