Advertisement

Constitutional Political Economy

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 211–234 | Cite as

Bootleggers, Baptists, and the risks of rent seeking

  • Patrick A. McLaughlin
  • Adam C. SmithEmail author
  • Russell S. Sobel
Original Paper

Abstract

Interest groups ‘caught’ influencing public policy solely for private gain risk public backlash. These risks can be diminished, and rent seeking efforts made more successful, when moral or social arguments are employed in pushing for changes to public policy. Following Yandle’s Bootlegger and Baptist model, we postulate this risk differential should manifest itself in regulatory output with social regulations being more responsive to political influence than economic regulations. We test, and confirm, our theory using data on economic and social regulations from the new RegData project matched with data on campaign contributions and lobbying activity at the industry level.

Keywords

Rent seeking Social regulation Bootleggers and Baptists 

JEL Classification

A13 H42 K20 

Notes

References

  1. Aidt, T. S. (2003). Redistribution and deadweight cost: the role of political competition. European Journal of Political Economy, 19(2), 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aidt, T. S. (2016). Rent seeking and the economics of corruption. Constitutional Political Economy, 27(2), 142–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Ubaydli, O., & McLaughlin, P. A. (2017). RegData: A numerical database on industry-specific regulations for all United States industries and federal regulations, 1997–2012. Regulation & Governance, 11(1), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, M. 2017. For Earth Day, here’s how Americans view environmental issues. Pew Research Center http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/20/for-earth-day-heres-how-americans-view-environmental-issues/. Accessed April 5, 2019.
  5. Ansolabehere, S., de Figueiredo, J. M., & Snyder, J. M. (2003). Why is there so little money in US politics? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17, 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bar-Gill, O., & Warren, E. (2008). Making credit safer. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157, 1–101.Google Scholar
  7. Baum, C. F., Schaffer, M. E., & Stillman, S. (2007). Enhanced routines for instrumental variables/generalized method of moments estimation and testing. The Stata Journal, 7(4), 465–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker, G. S. (1983). A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 371–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Becker, G. S. (1985). Public policies, pressure groups, and dead weight costs. Journal of public economics, 28, 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brito, J., & Dudley, S. E. (2012). Regulation: A primer. Arlington: Mercatus Center at George Mason University.Google Scholar
  11. Congleton, R. D. (1991). Ideological conviction and persuasion in the rent-seeking society. Journal of Public Economics, 44(1), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Congleton, R. D. (2018). The Political Economy of Rent Creation and Rent Extraction. In R. D. Congleton, B. N. Grofman, & S. Voigt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Congleton, R. D., & Hillman, A. L. (2015). Companion to the political economy of rent seeking. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Congleton, R. D., Hillman, A. L., & Konrad, K. A. (2008). Forty years of research on rent seeking: fan overview. The Theory of Rent Seeking: Forty Years of Research, 1, 1–42.Google Scholar
  15. Del Rosal, I. (2011). The empirical measurement of rent? Seeking costs. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(2), 298–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Denzau, A. T., & Munger, M. C. (1986). Legislators and interest groups: How unorganized interests get represented. The American Political Science Review, 80, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dudley, S., & Warren, M. (2011). Fiscal statement reflected in regulators’ budget: An analysis of the U.S. budget for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Wiedenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy. St. Louis: Washington University.Google Scholar
  18. Godwin, R. K., López, E. J., & Seldon, B. J. (2006). Incorporating policymaker costs and political competition into rent-seeking games. Southern Economic Journal, 73, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hennan, A. 2018. The Quizzical Case of UNC’s “Buy Local” Resolution. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal: https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2018/03/quizzical-case-uncs-buy-local-resolution/. Accessed April 15, 2018.
  20. Hillman, A. L. (2019). Public finance and public policy: responsibilities and limitations of government (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hillman, A. L., & Katz, E. (1984). Risk-averse rent seekers and the social cost of monopoly power. The Economic Journal, 94(373), 104–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hillman, A. L., & Long, N. V. (2018). Rent seeking: the social cost of contestable benefits. In R. D. Congleton, B. N. Grofman, & S. Voigt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hillman, A. L., & Riley, J. G. (1989). Politically contestable rents and transfers. Economics and Politics, 1(1), 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hillman, A.L. & Ursprung, H.W. (1992). The influence of environmental concerns on the political determination of trade policy. The greening of world trade issues, p. 195–220.Google Scholar
  25. Hillman, A. L., & Ursprung, H. W. (1994). Greens, supergreens, and international trade policy: Environmental concerns and protectionism. In C. Carraro (Ed.), Trade, innovation, environment (pp. 75–108). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hillman, A. L., & Ursprung, H. W. (2016). Where are the rent seekers? Constitutional Political Economy, 27(2), 124–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hopenhayn, H., & Lohmann, S. (1996). Fire-alarm signals and the political oversight of regulatory agencies. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 12(1), 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Issacharoff, S., & Peterman, J. (2013). Special interests after citizens united: Access, replacement, and interest group response to legal change. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 9, 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Langer, G. 2010. Citizens united poll: 80 percent of Americans oppose supreme court decision. The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/citizens-united-poll-80-p_n_465396.html. Accessed April 5, 2019.
  30. Lilly, W., & Miller, J. C. (1977). The new social regulation. The Public Interest, 47, 28–36.Google Scholar
  31. Lipford, J. W., & Slice, J. (2007). Adam Smith’s roles for government and contemporary US government roles. The Independent Review, 11(4), 485–501.Google Scholar
  32. Lipford, J. W., & Yandle, B. (2009). The determinants of purposeful voluntarism. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(1), 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Long, N. V., & Vousden, N. (1987). Risk-averse rent seeking with shared rents. The Economic Journal, 97, 971–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lopez, R. A., & Pagoulatos, E. (1994). Rent seeking and the welfare cost of trade barriers. Public Choice, 79(1), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacKenzie, I. A. (2017). Rent creation and rent seeking in environmental policy. Public Choice, 171(1–2), 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller, J. C., & Yandle, B. (Eds.). (1979). Benefit-cost analyses of social regulation: Case studies from the council on wage and price stability (Vol. 231). Washington: American Enterprise Institute Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mixon, F. G., Laband, D. N., & Ekelund, R. B. (1994). Rent seeking and hidden in-kind resource distortion: some empirical evidence. Public Choice, 78(2), 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Murphy, K. M., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1993). Why is rent-seeking so costly to growth? The American Economic Review, 83(2), 409–414.Google Scholar
  39. Newey, W. K., & West, K. D. (1987). A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica, 55, 703–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Newey, W. K., & West, K. D. (1994). Automatic lag selection in covariance matrix estimation. Review of Economic Studies, 61, 631–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Office of Management & Budget. 2011. Fiscal year 2012 historical tables, budget of the United States. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2011.
  42. Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations: Economic growth, stagflation, and social rigidities. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Peltzman, S. (1976). Toward a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 19, 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seitz-Wald, A. 2012. “Everyone hates citizens united.” Salon. http://www.salon.com/2012/10/25/people_really_hate_citizens_united/. Accessed April 5, 2019.
  45. Shogren, J. F. (1990). The optimal subsidization of Baptists by Bootleggers. Public Choice, 67(2), 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith, A. C., Wagner, R. E., & Yandle, B. (2011). A theory of entangled political economy, with application to TARP and NRA. Public Choice, 148, 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, A. C., & Yandle, B. (2014). Bootleggers and Baptists: How economic forces and moral persuasion interact to shape regulatory politics. Washington: Cato Institute Press.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, A. C., & Zywicki, T. (2015). Behavior, paternalism, and policy: evaluating consumer financial protection. NYUJL & Liberty, 9, 201.Google Scholar
  49. Sobel, R. S., & Garrett, T. A. (2002). On the measurement of rent seeking and its social opportunity cost. Public Choice, 112(1), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Soper, S. 2019. Amazon scraps plan to build a headquarters in New York City. Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-14/amazon-says-it-won-t-build-a-headquarters-in-new-york-city. Accessed March 24, 2019.
  51. Stratmann, T. 2005. Some talk: Money in politics. A (partial) review of the literature. In Policy challenges and political responses (pp. 135–156). Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  52. The Center for Responsive Politics. 2017. Opensecrets RSS. Combined Federal Campaign of the National Capital Area. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/slist.php Accessed January 27, 2017.
  53. Tollison, R. D. (1982). Rent seeking: A survey. Kyklos, 35(4), 575–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tullock, G. (1967). The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Economic Inquiry, 5(3), 224–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tullock, G. (1972). The purchase of politicians. Western Economic Journal [Economic Inquiry], 10, 354–355.Google Scholar
  56. Tullock, G. (1983). Economics of income redistribution. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tullock, G. (1989). The economics of special privilege and rent seeking. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ursprung, H. W. (1990). Public goods, rent dissipation, and candidate competition. Economics and Politics, 2(2), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ursprung, H. W. (2012). The evolution of sharing rules in rent seeking contests: incentives crowd out cooperation. Public Choice, 153(1–2), 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vogel, D. (1988). The ‘new’ social regulation in historical and comparative perspective (p. 431). American Law and the Constitutional Order: Historical Perspectives.Google Scholar
  61. Wagner, R. E. (2007). Fiscal sociology and the theory of public finance: An exploratory essay. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wagner, R. E. (2016). Politics as a peculiar business: Insights from a theory of entangled political economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weidenbaum, M. L. (1977). Business, government and the public. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  64. Williams, B. A., & Matheny, A. R. (1984). Testing theories of social regulation: Hazardous waste regulation in the American states. The Journal of Politics, 46(2), 428–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yandle, B. (1983). Bootleggers and Baptists—The education of a regulatory economist. Regulation, 7, 12.Google Scholar
  66. Yandle, B. (1999). Bootleggers and Baptists in retrospect. Regulation, 22, 5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mercatus CenterGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.College of Arts and SciencesJohnson and Wales UniversityCharlotteUSA
  3. 3.Baker School of BusinessThe CitadelCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations