Public Choice

, Volume 159, Issue 1–2, pp 251–275 | Cite as

Legislative budget cycles

Article

Abstract

Recent literature suggests that electoral budget cycles are a phenomenon of new rather than established democracies. What part of the democratization process explains the amelioration of the political budget cycle? We argue the answer lies (in part) in the development of a strong party system. We extend the classic Rogoff-Siebert model to show that political budget cycles are possible in a legislative context with rational voters. We then demonstrate that the development of a strong party system can restrain political budget cycles in a majoritarian electoral system. Finally, we follow prior work in using vote share volatility as a measure of the institutionalization of the party system. Using newly collected vote-share data for 433 elections for 90 democracies from 1980–2007, we calculate a measure of party institutionalization. We then use this data to demonstrate that institutionalized party systems are associated with mitigated political budget cycles, especially in majoritarian electoral systems.

Keywords

Political budget cycles Party institutionalization 

JEL Classification

H6 D72 

Supplementary material

11127_2012_43_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (514 kb)
(PDF 514 kB)
11127_2012_43_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (514 kb)
(PDF 514 kB)

References

  1. Akhmedov, A., & Zhuravskaya, E. (2004). Opportunistic political cycles: test in a young democracy setting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 1301–1338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, J. (1995). Why parties? Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alesina, A., Cohen, G., & Roubini, N. (1992). Macroeconomic policy and elections in OECD democracies. Economics and Politics, 4, 1–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alt, J., & Lassen, D. (2006). Transparency, political polarization, and political budget cycles in OECD countries. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 530–550. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, C. (1995). Blaming the government: citizens and the economy in five European democracies. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe Publishers Inc. Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, C. (2000). Economic voting and political context: a comparative perspective. Electoral Studies, 19, 151–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some test of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arulampalam, W., Dasgupta, S., Dhillon, A., & Dutta, B. (2009). Electoral goals and center-state transfers: a theoretical model and empirical evidence from India. Journal of Development Economics, 88(1), 103–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bielasiak, J. (2002). The institutionalization of electoral and party systems in post-communist states. Comparative Politics, 34(2), 189–210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brender, A., & Drazen, A. (2005). Political budget cycles in new versus established democracies. Journal of Monetary Economics, 52(7), 1271–1295. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brender, A., & Drazen, A. (2008). How do deficits and growth affect reelection? The American Economic Review, 98(5), 2203–2220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dahlberg, M., & Johansson, E. (2002). On the vote-purchasing behavior of incumbent governments. The American Political Science Review, 96(1), 27–40. Google Scholar
  13. Drazen, A. (2001). The political business cycle after 25 years. In B. Bernanke & K. Rogoff (Eds.), NBER macroeconomics annual 2000 (Vol. 15, pp. 75–117). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  14. Duch, R. (2001). A developmental model of heterogeneous economic voting in new democracies. The American Political Science Review, 95(4), 895–910. Google Scholar
  15. Duch, R., & Stevenson, R. (2008). The economic vote: how political and economic institutions condition election results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fishback, P. V., Kantor, S., & Wallis, J. J. (2003). Can the New Deal’s three Rs be rehabilitated? A program-by-program, county-by-county analysis. Explorations in Economic History, 40(3), 278–307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keefer, P. (2007). Clientelism, credibility, and the policy choices of young democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 804–821. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kitschelt, H. (2000). Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities. Comparative Political Studies, 33(6/7), 845–879. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leitschig, S., & Morrison, K. (2010). Government spending and re-election (Working paper). June 21, 2010. Google Scholar
  20. Levitt, S. D., & Snyder, J. M. (1997). The impact of federal spending on house election outcomes. Journal of Political Economy, 105(1), 30–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewis-Beck, M. (1988). Economics and elections: the major western democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  22. Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  23. Mainwaring, S. (1999). Rethinking party systems in the third wave of democratization: the case of Brazil. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  24. Mainwaring, S., & Scully, T. (1995). Introduction. In S. Mainwaring & T. Scully (Eds.), Building democratic institutions: party systems in Latin America Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  25. Mainwaring, S., & Torcal, M. (2005). Party system institutionalization and party system theory after the third wave of democratization (Working Paper #319). Kellog Institute. Google Scholar
  26. Milesi-Ferretti, G., Perotti, R., & Rostagno, M. (2002). Electoral systems and public spending. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(2), 609–657. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pedersen, M. (1983). Changing patterns of electoral volatility in European party systems: explorations in explanation. In H. Daalder & P. Mair (Eds.), Western European party systems: continuity and change (pp. 29–66). Beverly Hills: Sage. Google Scholar
  28. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2003a). The economic effects of constitutions. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  29. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2003b). Do electoral cycles differ across political systems? (Working Paper No. 232). Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research (IGIER), March 2003. Google Scholar
  30. Powell, G., & Whitten, G. (1993). A cross-sectional analysis of economic voting: taking account of political context. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 391–414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reinhart, C., & Rogoff, K. (2004). The modern history of exchange rate arrangements: a reinterpretation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 1–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rogoff, K., & Siebert, A. (1988). Elections and macroeconomic policy cycles. Review of Economic Studies, 55, 1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rose, R., & Munro, N. (2003). Elections and parties in new European democracies. Washington: CQ Press. Google Scholar
  34. Saporiti, A., & Streb, J. (2008). Separation of powers and political budget cycles. Public Choice, 137, 329–345. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shi, M., & Svensson, J. (2006). Political budget cycles: do they differ across countries and why? Journal of Public Economics, 90(8–9), 1367–1389. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stimson, J., Mackuen, M., & Erikson, R. (1995). Dynamic representation. The American Political Science Review, 89(3), 543–565. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Streb, J., Lema, D., & Torrens, G. (2009). Checks and balances on political budget cycles: cross-country evidence. Kyklos, 62(3), 426–447. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Claremont McKenna CollegeClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations