Political Institutions and Policy Outcomes: What are the Stylized Facts?

Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT We investigate the effect of electoral rules and political regimes on fiscal policy outcomes in a panel of 61 democracies from 1960 and onwards. In presidential regimes, the size of government is smaller and less responsive to income shocks, compared to parliamentary regimes. Under majoritarian elections, social transfers are smaller and aggregate spending less responsive to to income shocks than under proportional elections. Institutions also shape electoral cycles; only in presidential regimes is fiscal adjustment delayed until after the elections, and only in proportional and parliamentary systems do social transfers expand around elections. Several of these empirical regularities are in line with recent theoretical work; others are still awaiting a theoretical explanation.

  • International Political Science Review 10/2014; DOI:10.1177/0192512114543160 · 0.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Using a large sample of 3266 privatization transactions from 100 countries over the period 1977–2006, I test hypotheses on the political underpinnings of the choice of privatization method. After controlling for firm-level characteristics and cross-country legal institutions, I find that the political system's type, tenure, and cohesion explain the choice between privatizing with a share issue or an asset sale. My results are robust to a series of sensitivity tests and suggest that the government's choice of privatization method is politically constrained at different levels.
    Journal of Multinational Financial Management 01/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.mulfin.2013.06.004
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This work provides empirical evidence for a sizeable, statistically significant negative impact of the quality of fiscal institutions on public spending volatility for a panel of 25 EU countries over the 1980-2007 period. The dependent variable is the volatility of discretionary fiscal policy, which does not represent reactions to changes in economic conditions. Our baseline results thus give support to the strengthening of institutions to deal with excessive levels of discretion volatility, as more checks and balances make it harder for governments to change fiscal policy for reasons unrelated to the current state of the economy. Our results also show that bigger countries and bigger governments have less public spending volatility. In contrast to previous studies, the political factors do not seem to play a role, with the exception of the Herfindahl index, which suggests that high concentration of parliamentary seats in a few parties would increase public spending volatility.
    Economic Modelling 11/2011; 28(6):2544–2559. DOI:10.1016/j.econmod.2011.07.018 · 0.70 Impact Factor

Full-text (4 Sources)

Available from
Oct 17, 2014