Journal of Economics

, Volume 89, Issue 2, pp 95–113 | Cite as

Uniformity Requirement and Political Accountability

Article

Abstract

This paper discusses the fundamental hypothesis of policy uniformity under centralized decision making, which underlies Oates' famous decentralization theorem. The theorem has, in more recent times, come under pressure owing to the prediction that local public goods are provided to minimum winning coalitions rather than uniformly. The focus of this paper is on the impact of uniformity rules on political accountability. Using the concept of minimum winning coalitions, it is shown that the power of voters over politicians vanishes if election districts receive different levels of local public goods. However, the setting up of sufficiently strong uniformity rules means that voters regain power. According to Oates' theorem, uniformity is the main disadvantage of centralization but, according to the analysis undertaken in this paper, centralization without uniformity would be even worse.

Keywords

voting theory electoral accountability centralization uniformity 

JEL Classification

D72 H11 H70 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aumann, R. 1959Acceptable Points in General Cooperative n-Person GamesAnnals of Mathematics Studies40287324Google Scholar
  2. Barro, R. 1973The Control of Politicians: An Economic ModelPublic Choice141942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Besley, T., Coate, S. 2003Centralized versus Decentralized Provision of Local Public Goods: A Political Economy ApproachJournal of Public Economics8726112637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Besley, T., Smart, M. (2003) “Fiscal Restraints and Voter Welfare”. Mimeo. LSE.Google Scholar
  5. Bolton, P., Roland, G. 1997The Breakup of Nations: A Political Economy AnalysisQuarterly Journal of Economics11210571090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J., Tullock, G. 1962The Calculus of ConsentUniversity of Michigan PressAnn ArborGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferejohn, J. 1986Incumbent Performance and Electoral ControlPublic Choice50526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansen, N., Kessler, A. (2004) “Interregional Redistribution and Mobility in Federations: A Positive Approach”. CEPR Discussion Paper 4576.Google Scholar
  9. Hindriks, J., and Lockwood, B. (2005): “Decentralization and Electoral Accountability: Incentives, Separation, and Voter Welfare”. CESifo Working Paper 1509.Google Scholar
  10. Lockwood, B. 2002Distributive Politics and the Benefits of DecentralizationReview of Economic Studies69313337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Oates, W. 1972Fiscal FederalismHarcourt BraceNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Persson, T., Tabellini, G. 2000Political Economics: Explaining Economic PolicyMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Riker, W. 1962The Theory of Political CoalitionsYale University PressNew HavenGoogle Scholar
  14. Seabright, P. 1996Accountability and Decentralisation in Government: An Incomplete Contracts ModelEuropean Economic Review406189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shepsle, K. A., Weingast, B. R. 1981Political Preferences for the Pork Barrel: A GeneralizationAmerican Journal of Political Science2596111Google Scholar
  16. Weingast, B. R. 1979A Rational Choice Perspective on Congressional NormsAmerican Journal of Political Science23245262Google Scholar
  17. Wrede, M. 2002Vertical Externalities and Control of PoliticiansEconomics of Governance3135151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wrede, M. 2004Small States, Large States and FederationsPublic Choice119219240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business and EconomicsRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations