Public Choice

, Volume 147, Issue 1–2, pp 189–207 | Cite as

Does legislative turnover adversely affect state expenditure policy? Evidence from Indian state elections

  • Yogesh Uppal


The effect of legislative turnover on the size and composition of government expenditures in Indian states over the 1980–2000 period is examined. The paper finds that excessive turnover in Indian state elections results in inefficient government expenditure policy. First, the higher the turnover, the larger the government size. Second, excessive turnover affects the allocative efficiency of government expenditures by skewing the composition of government spending toward pure consumption and away from more productive investment expenditures. Third, the effect of turnover on fiscal policy is not linear; public consumption expenditure is convex in turnover, while public investment expenditure is concave in turnover.


Government spending Efficiency Indian elections Crowding out 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alesina, A., & Perrotti, R. (1996). Income distribution, political instability, and investment. European Economic Review, 40, 1203–1228. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., & Tabellini, G. (1990). A positive theory of fiscal deficits and government debt. Review of Economic Studies, 57, 403–414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardhan, P., & Yang, T. (2004). Political competition in economic perspective. Bureau of Research in Economic Analysis of Development. Working paper number 078. Google Scholar
  4. Barro, R. J. (1973). The control of politicians: an economic model. Public Choice, 14, 19–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barro, R. J. (1990). Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S103–S125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barro, R. J. (1991). Economic growth in a cross section of countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(2), 407–443. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, G. S. (1976). Comment: toward a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 19(2), 245–248. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker, G. S. (1983). A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(3), 371–400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Becker, G. S. (1985). Public policies, pressure groups, and deadweight costs. Journal of Public Economics, 28, 328–347. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Besley, T., & Burgess, R. (2002). The political economy of government responsiveness: theory and evidence from India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1415–1451. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Besley, T., & Case, A. (1995). Does electoral accountability effect economic policy choices? Evidence from gubernatorial term limits. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 769–798. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crain, W. M. (1977). On the structure and stability of political markets. Journal of Political Economy, 85(4), 829–842. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crain, W. M., & Tollison, R. D. (1977). Attenuated property rights and the market for Governors. Journal of Law and Economics, 20(1), 205–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crain, W. M., & Tollison, R. (1993). Time inconsistency and fiscal policy: empirical analysis of US states, 1969–1989. Journal of Public Economics, 51, 153–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Haan, J., & Strum, J. (1994). Political and institutional determinants of fiscal policy in the European Community. Public Choice, 80, 157–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daniel, K., & Lott, J. R. Jr. (1997). Term limits and electoral competitiveness: evidence from California’s state legislative races. Public Choice, 90, 165–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dick, A. R., & Lott, J. R. Jr. (1993). Reconciling voters behavior with legislative term limits. Journal of Public Economics, 50, 1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erler, H. A. (2007). Legislative term limits and state spending. Public Choice, 133, 479–494. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grier, K. B., & Tullock, G. (1989). An empirical analysis of cross-national economic growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 24(2), 259–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hibbing, A. (1991). Contours of the modern congressional career. American Political Science Review, 85, 405–428. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, J. M., & Crain, W. M. (2004). Effects of term limits on fiscal performance: evidence from democratic nations. 119(1/2), 73–90. Google Scholar
  22. Kamath, P. M. (1985). Politics of defection in India in the 1980s. Asian Survey, 25(10), 1039–1054. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laband, D., & Sophocleus, J. P. (1992). An estimate of resource expenditures of transfer activity in the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(3), 959–983. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lahiri, A. (2000). Sub-national public finance in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(18), 1539–1549. Google Scholar
  25. Lee, D. (2008). Randomized experiments from non-random selection in US House elections. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 675–697. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lopez, E. J. (2003). Term limits: causes and consequences. Public Choice, 114, 1–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lott, J. R. Jr. (1986). Brand names and barriers to entry in political markets. Public Choice, 51, 87–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lott, J. R. Jr. (1987a). Political cheating. Public Choice, 53, 169–186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lott, J. R. Jr. (1987b). The effect of nontransferable property rights on the efficiency of political markets: some evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 32, 231–246. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCormick, R. E., Shughart, W. F. II, & Tollison, R. E. (1984). The disinterest in deregulation. American Economic Review, 74(5), 1075–1079. Google Scholar
  31. Millimet, D., Sturm, D. M., & List, J. A. (2004). The economic consequences of electoral accountability revisited. Unpublished manuscript. Google Scholar
  32. Payne, J. L. (1991). The culture of spending. San Francisco: ICS Press. Google Scholar
  33. Peltzman, S. (1976). Toward a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 19(2), 211–240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perotti, R., & Kontopoulos, Y. (2002). Fragmented fiscal policy. Journal of Public Economics, 86, 191–222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Persson, T., & Svensson, L. E. O. (1989). Why a stubborn conservative would run a deficit: policy with time-inconsistent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(2), 325–345. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rao, M. G. (2002). State finances in India: issues and challenges. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(31), 3261–3271. Google Scholar
  37. Ravallion, M., & Datt, G. (2002). Why has economic growth been more pro-poor in some states of India than others. Journal of Development Economics, 68, 381–400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reed, W. R., Schansberg, D. E., Wilbanks, J., & Zhu, Z. (1998). The relationship between Congressional spending and tenure with an application to term limits. Public Choice, 94(1/2), 85–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosenthal, A. (1974). Legislative performance in the states. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
  40. Shridharan, E. (2002). The fragmentation of Indian party system, 1952–1999. In Z. Hasan (Ed.), Parties and party politics in India (pp. 475–503). New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  41. Spieb, C., & Pehl, M. (2003). Floor crossings and nascent democracies—a neglected aspect of electoral systems? The current South African debate in the light of Indian experience. Unpublished manuscript. Google Scholar
  42. Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economic and Management Science, 2, 3–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stigler, G. J. (1972). Economic competition and political competition. Public Choice, 91–106. Google Scholar
  44. Stigler, G. J. (1982). Economists and public policy. Regulation, 6, 13–17. Google Scholar
  45. Tullock, G. (1967). The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies and thefts. Western Economic Journal, 5, 224–232. Google Scholar
  46. Tullock, G. (1983). Economics of income redistribution. Boston: Kluwer–Nijhoff. Google Scholar
  47. Tullock, G. (1989). The economics of special privilege and rent seeking. Boston: Kluwer–Nijhoff. Google Scholar
  48. Uppal, Y. (2009). The disadvantaged incumbents: estimating incumbency effects in Indian state legislatures. Public Choice, 138, 9–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Uppal, Y. (2010, forthcoming). Estimating incumbency effects in US state legislatures: a quasi-experimental study. Economics and Politics. Google Scholar
  50. Volkerink, J., & De Haan, J. (2001). Fragmented government effects on fiscal policy: new evidence. Public Choice, 109, 221–242. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wittman, D. (1989). Why democracies produce efficient results. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1395–1424. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsYoungstown State UniversityYoungstownUSA

Personalised recommendations