Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 143, Issue 1–2, pp 135–155 | Cite as

Does government ideology influence deregulation of product markets? Empirical evidence from OECD countries

  • Niklas Potrafke
Article

Abstract

This paper examines how government ideology has influenced deregulation of product markets in OECD countries. I analyze a dataset of non-manufacturing regulation indicators covering energy, transport and communication industries in 21 OECD countries over the 1980–2003 period and employ two different indices of government ideology. The results suggest that government ideology has had a strong influence on the deregulation process: market-oriented governments promoted the deregulation of the energy, transport and communication industries. This finding identifies remarkable differences between leftist and rightwing governments concerning the role of government in the economy and basic elements of political order.

Keywords

Product market deregulation Government ideology Panel data 

JEL Classification

D72 L50 P16 C23 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, I. (1998). Ideology and politics in Britain today. Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press. Google Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., Roubini, N., & Cohen, G. D. (1997). Political cycles and the macroeconomy. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Google Scholar
  3. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arin, K. P., & Ulubaşoğlu, M. A. (2009). Leviathan resists: the endogenous relationship between privatization and firm performance. Public Choice, 140(1–2), 185–204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bassanini, A., & Duval, R. (2006). Employment patterns in OECD countries: reassessing the role of policies and institutions. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No 35. Google Scholar
  6. Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1996). Nuisance vs. substance: specifying and estimating time-series cross section models. Political Analysis, 6(1), 1–36. Google Scholar
  7. Behr, A. (2003). A comparison of dynamic panel data estimators: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to the investment function. Discussion paper 05/03, Economic Research Centre of the Deutsche Bundesbank. Google Scholar
  8. Benoit, K., & Laver, M. (2006). Party policy in modern democracies. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  9. Berger, H., & Danninger, S. (2007). The employment effects of labor and product market deregulation and their implications for structural reform. IMF Staff Papers, 54(3), 591–619. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bergh, A., & Erlingsson, G. Ó. (2009). Liberalization without retrenchment: understanding the consensus on Swedish welfare state reforms. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(1), 71–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bjørnskov, C. (2005a). Political ideology and economic freedom. Working Paper 05-8. University of Aarhus. Google Scholar
  12. Bjørnskov, C. (2005b). Does political ideology affect economic growth?. Public Choice, 123(2), 133–146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bjørnskov, C. (2008a). Political ideology and the structure of national accounts in the Nordic Countries, 1950–2004. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the European Public Choice Society, Jena, 27–30 March 2008. Google Scholar
  14. Bjørnskov, C. (2008b). The growth-inequality association: government ideology matters. Journal of Development Economics, 87(2), 300–308. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bjørnskov, C., & Potrafke, N. (2009). Politics and privatization in Central and Eastern Europe: a panel data analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Public Choice Society, Las Vegas, 5–8 March 2009. Google Scholar
  16. Bloom, D., Canning, D., Mansfield, R. K., & Moore, M. (2007). Demographic change, social security systems, and savings. Journal of Monetary Economics, 54(1), 92–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blundell, R. W., & Bond, S. R. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Blyth, M., & Katz, R. (2005). From Catch-all politics to cartelisation: The political economy of the cartel party. West European Politics, 28(1), 33–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Boix, C. (1998). Political parties, growth and equality—conservative and social democratic economic strategies in the world economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  20. Bortolotti, B., & Pinotti, P. (2008). Delayed privatization. Public Choice, 136(3–4), 331–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bortolotti, B., Fantini, M., & Siniscalco, D. (2001). Privatisation: politics, institutions, and financial markets. Emerging Markets Review, 2(2), 109–136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bortolotti, B., Fantini, M., & Siniscalco, D. (2003). Privatisation around the world: evidence From panel data. Journal of Public Economics, 88(1–2), 305–332. Google Scholar
  23. Bruno, G. S. F. (2005a). Approximating the bias of the LSDV estimator for dynamic unbalanced panel data models. Economics Letters, 87(3), 361–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bruno, G. S. F. (2005b). Estimation and inference in dynamic unbalanced panel data models with a small number of individuals. Stata Journal, 5(4), 473–500. Google Scholar
  25. Budge, I., Keman, H., & Woldendorp, J. (1993). Political data 1945–1990. Party government In 20 democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 24(1), 1–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cerny, P. G. (1991). The limits of deregulation: Transnational interpenetration and policy change. European Journal of Political Research, 19, 173–196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Conway, P., & Nicoletti, G. (2006). Product market regulation in the non-manufacturing sectors of OECD countries: measurement and highlights. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 530, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/362886816127.
  28. Cukierman, A., & Tommasi, M. (1998). When does it take a Nixon go to China? American Economic Review, 88(1), 180–197. Google Scholar
  29. Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied Economics, 38(1), 1091–1110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dreher, A., Gaston, N., & Martens, P. (2008a). Measuring globalization—understanding its causes and consequences. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  31. Dreher, A., Sturm, J.-E., & Ursprung, H. W. (2008b). The impact of globalization on the composition of government expenditures: evidence from panel data. Public Choice, 134(3–4), 263–292. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Duso, T. (2007). On the politics of the regulatory reform: econometric evidence from OECD countries. WZB Working Paper FS IV 02-07. Google Scholar
  33. Duval, R. (2008). Is there a role for macroeconomic policy in fostering structural reforms? Panel evidence from OECD countries over the past two decades. European Journal of Political Economy, 24(2), 491–502. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  35. Heinemann, F. (2007). The drivers of deregulation in the era of globalization. In P. Bernholz & R. Vaubel (Eds.), Political competition and economic regulation (pp. 245–266). New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  36. Henisz, W. (2000). The institutional environment for growth. Economics and Politics, 12(1), 1–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Imai, M. (2009). Ideologies, vested interest groups, and postal saving privatization in Japan. Public Choice, 138(1–2), 137–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kroszner, R. S., & Strahan, P. E. (1998). What drives deregulation? Economics and politics of The relaxation of bank branching restrictions. NBER Working Paper 6637. Google Scholar
  39. Kurrild-Klitgaard, P. (2005). The political economy of the dynamic nature of government intervention: an introduction to potentials and problems. Advances in Austrian Economics, 8, 3–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mair, P. (2008). The challenge to party government. West European Politics, 31(1), 211–231. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Munger, M. C. (2008). Economic choice, political decision and the problem of limits. Public Choice, 137(3–4), 507–522. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. OECD (2007). Health data. Paris. Google Scholar
  43. OECD (2009). Main economic indicators. Paris. Google Scholar
  44. Ortega, M. A., Sánchez, M. A., & González, F. (2003). Privatization, deregulation and competition: evidence from Spain. Revista de Economia del Rosario, 6(1), 1–21. Google Scholar
  45. Peacock, A. (1997). The political economy of economic freedom. Celtenham/Lyme: Edward Elgar Publishing. Google Scholar
  46. Pitlik, H. (2007). A race to liberalization? Diffusion of economic policy reform among OECD-economies. Public Choice, 132(1), 159–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pitlik, H. (2008). The impact of growth performance and political regime type on economic policy liberalization. Kyklos, 61(2), 258–278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pitlik, H., & Wirth, S. (2003). Do crises promote the extent of economic liberalization? An empirical test. European Journal of Political Economy, 19(3), 565–581. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Potrafke, N. (2008). Parties change! Introducing a dynamic index on voter polarization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Public Choice Society, San Antonio 6–9 March 2008. Google Scholar
  50. Potrafke, N. (2009a). Labor market deregulation and globalization: empirical evidence from OECD countries. Working Paper. University of Konstanz. Google Scholar
  51. Potrafke, N. (2009b). Did globalization restrict partisan politics? An empirical evaluation of social expenditures in a panel of OECD countries. Public Choice, 140(1–2), 105–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Potrafke, N. (2009c). Does government ideology influence political alignment with the U.S.? An empirical analysis of voting in the UN General Assembly. Review of International Organizations (forthcoming). Google Scholar
  53. Roodman, D. (2006). How to do xtabond2: an introduction to “Difference” and “System” GMM in Stata. Center for Global Development. Working Paper 103. Google Scholar
  54. Roodman, D. (2009). A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 135–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ross, F. (2000). “Beyond left and right”: the new partisan politics of welfare. Governance: An international Journal of Policy and Administration, 13(2), 155–183. Google Scholar
  56. Rowley, C., & Rathbone, A. (2004). Political economy of antitrust. In N. Neuman & J. Weigand (Eds.), The international handbook of competition (pp. 173–209). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
  57. Sakamoto, T. (2008). Economic policy and performance in industrial democracies—party governments, central banks and the fiscal-monetary policy mix. London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  58. Schulze, G. G., & Ursprung, H. W. (1999). Globalisation of the economy and the nation state. World Economy, 22(3), 295–352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tagkalakis, A. (2009). Fiscal adjustments: do labor and product market institutions matter? Public Choice, 139(3), 389–411. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ursprung, H. W. (2008). Globalisation and the welfare state. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics (2nd edn.). Köln: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar
  61. Vaubel, R. (2008). The political economy of labor market regulation by the European Union. Review of International Organizations, 3(4), 435–465. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Woldendorp, J., Keman, H., & Budge, I. (1998). Party government in 20 democracies: a update 1990–1995. European Journal of Political Research, 33(1), 125–164. Google Scholar
  63. Woldendorp, J., Keman, H., & Budge, I. (2000). Party government in 48 democracies 1945–1998: composition, duration, personnel. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  64. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  65. Worldbank (2009). World development indicators online. Washington: Worldbank. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations