Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 124, Issue 3–4, pp 249–266 | Cite as

Non-binding linked-issues referenda: Analysis and an application

  • Timo GoeschlEmail author
Article
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

Non-binding referenda (‘petitions') are an instrument of direct democracy that allows citizens to signal preferences to politicians outside the electoral cycle. This paper provides a simple theoretical and empirical analysis of a particular form of non-binding referenda, so-called linked-issues petitions. It analyzes the ability of issue linkage to increase participation levels above those of single-issue petitions and applies the analytical insights to a controversial referendum held in Austria in 2002 that linked issues of transboundary nuclear risk and Eastern enlargement of the European Union.

Keywords

Empirical Analysis Public Finance Direct Democracy Electoral Cycle Participation Level 
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. Burkey, M. L., & Durden, G. C. (1998). The political economy of clean air legislation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 11, 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caplin, A., & Nalebuff, B. (1988). On 64% majority voting. Econometrica, 56, 787–814.Google Scholar
  3. Feigenbaum, S., Karoly, L., & Levy, D. (1988). When votes are words not deeds: Some evidence from the nuclear freeze referendum. Public Choice, 58(3), 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fischer, A. J. (1999). The probability of being decisive. Public Choice, 101, 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fort, R., & Bunn, D. N. (1998). Whether one votes and how one votes. Public Choice, 95(1/2), 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grandmont, J.-M. (1978). Intermediate preferences and majority rule. Econometrica, 46, 317–330.Google Scholar
  7. Greene, W. (2002). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
  8. Kahneman, D. (1994). New challenges to the rationality assumption. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 150, 18–36.Google Scholar
  9. Kahneman, D., & Snell, J. (1992). Predicting a changing taste. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, 187–200.Google Scholar
  10. Kalt, J., & Zupan, M. (1984). Capture and ideology in the economic theory of politics. American Economic Review, 74(3), 279–300.Google Scholar
  11. Mehmood, S., & Zhang, D. (2001). A roll call analysis of the endangered species act amendments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(3), 501–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MRM. (2002). Survey of Austrian attitudes towards the civilian use of nuclear power. (MAFO Report, Vienna).Google Scholar
  13. Mueller, D. (2003). Public choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Newing, R. A., & Black, D. (1951). Committee decisions with complementary valuation. London: William Hodge.Google Scholar
  15. Österreichische Gesellschaft für Europapolitik (ÖGfE). (2002). Ein volksbegehren am prüfstand. Wien: ÖGfE.Google Scholar
  16. Perrings, C., & Hannon, B. (2001). An introduction to spatial discounting. Journal of Regional Science, 41(1), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Plasser, F., & Ulram, P. (2002). Analyse des volksbegehrens `veto gegen temelin': Wer hat unterschrieben. Wien: Fessel-GfK-Institut.Google Scholar
  18. Tollison, R. D., & Willett, T. D. (1979): An economic theory of mutually advantageous issue linkages in international negotiations. International Organization, 33(4), 425–449.Google Scholar
  19. Tullock, G. (1967). The general irrelevancy of the general impossibility theorem. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81(2), 256–270.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations