Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 88, Issue 1–2, pp 1–13 | Cite as

Towards a positive theory of political rhetoric: Why do politicians lie?

  • Michael L. Davis
  • Michael Ferrantino
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a model in which politicians can increase the probability of election by making exaggerated claims about the benefits of their own platform — referred to as positive campaigning — and by exaggerating the undesirable characteristics of their rival — i.e., negative campaigning. Such lies may be detected at some point in the future and thus result in a costly loss in reputation. Thus the politician must tradeoff immediate benefits against potential future costs. Of course this problem is similar to any commercial endeavor — a car maker, for example, is tempted to claim that his car is better and the competition's is worse than it is. But it is shown that the lack of transferable property rights to political office makes lying more likely in political markets. It is also shown that there is a natural tendency for politicians to engage in more negative campaigning.

Keywords

Public Finance Natural Tendency Transferable Property Future Cost Undesirable Characteristic 
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.

References

  1. Akerlof, G.A. (1970) The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism.Quarterly Journal of Economics 84 (August): 488–500.Google Scholar
  2. Crawford, V.P. and Sobel, J. (1982) Strategic information transmission.Econometrica 50(November): 1431–1452.Google Scholar
  3. Davis, M.L. and Porter, P.K. (1989) Measuring pure and apparent ideology in congressional voting.Public Choice 60(2): 101–112.Google Scholar
  4. Dick, A.R. and Lott, J.R. (1993) Reconciling voter behavior with term limits.Journal of Public Economics 50(October): 1–14.Google Scholar
  5. Klein, B. and Leffler, K. (1981) The role of market forces in assuring contractual performance.Journal of Political Economy 89: 615–641.Google Scholar
  6. Laffont, J.-J. and Tirole, J. (1993)A theory of incentives in procurement and regulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Lott, J.R. (1987) Political cheating.Public Choice 52(2): 169–187.Google Scholar
  8. Lott, J.R. and Davis, M.L. (1992) A critical review and extension of the political shirking literature.Public Choice 74: 461–484.Google Scholar
  9. McPherson, J. (1987)The battle cry of freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Tullock, G. (1967)Toward a mathematics of politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael L. Davis
    • 1
  • Michael Ferrantino
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsSouthern Methodist UniversityDallas

Personalised recommendations