Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 181, Issue 1–2, pp 167–190 | Cite as

Uncontestable favoritism

  • Matthew D. MitchellEmail author
Article

Abstract

One might obtain special favor or avoid disfavor by winning a competitive contest, a socially wasteful process that has been studied extensively in the rent-seeking literature. But favor or disfavor might also be uncontestable. In that case it will be efficient along some dimensions but grossly inequitable. The rent-seeking literature, in focusing on contest success functions, has tended to ignore the institutional roots of uncontestable rent-creation and rent-extraction. But casual observation suggests that institutional rules and cultural norms often ensure that favor and disfavor cannot be easily contested. Understanding that observation helps to resolve the Tullock paradox and explains the evolutionary persistence of inequitable social arrangements. It also illuminates economic and philosophical tradeoffs.

Keywords

Rent seeking Contests Uncontestable Corruption Cronyism Crony capitalism Favoritism Privilege 

JEL Classification

D7 D72 D74 H1 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Arye Hillman, Roger Congleton, Randall Holcombe, William Shughart and anonymous reviewers for numerous helpful comments and suggestions. I bear full responsibility for any errors or omissions that remain.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D. (2003). Why not a political Coase Theorem? Social conflict, commitment, and politics. Journal of Comparative Economics, 31(4), 620–652.Google Scholar
  2. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., Kermani, A., Kwak, J., & Mitton, T. (2016). The value of connections in turbulent times: Evidence from the United States. Journal of Financial Economics, 121(2), 368–391.Google Scholar
  3. Aidt, T. S., & Hillman, A. L. (2008). Enduring rents. European Journal of Political Economy, 24(3), 545–553.Google Scholar
  4. Aligica, P. D., & Tarko, V. (2014). Crony capitalism: Rent seeking, institutions and ideology. Kyklos, 67(2), 156–176.Google Scholar
  5. Allard, R. J. (1988). Rent-seeking with non-identical players. Public Choice, 57(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
  6. Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Baik, K. H. (1994). Effort levels in contests with two asymmetric players. Southern Economic Journal, 61(2), 367–378.Google Scholar
  8. Baik, K. H. (2004). Two-player asymmetric contests with ratio-form contest success functions. Economic Inquiry, 42(4), 679–689.Google Scholar
  9. Baik, K. H., & Shogren, J. F. (1992). Strategic behavior in contests: Comment. The American Economic Review, 82(1), 359–362.Google Scholar
  10. Baumol, W. J., Litan, R. E., & Schramm, C. J. (2007). Good capitalism, bad capitalism, and the economics of growth and prosperity. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Baye, M. R., Kovenock, D., & de Vries, C. G. (1993). Rigging the lobbying process: An application of the all-pay auction. The American Economic Review, 83(1), 289–294.Google Scholar
  12. Baye, M. R., Kovenock, D., & de Vries, C. G. (1996). The all-pay auction with complete information. Economic Theory, 8(2), 291–305.Google Scholar
  13. Baye, M. R., Kovenock, D., & de Vries, C. G. (1999). The incidence of overdissipation in rent-seeking contests. Public Choice, 99(3–4), 439–454.Google Scholar
  14. Bennett, J. T. (2015). Corporate welfare: Crony capitalism that enriches the rich. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Bennour, K. (2009). The value of rents and the likelihood of conflicts. International Review of Economics, 56(2), 163.Google Scholar
  16. Bhagwati, J. N. (1982). Directly unproductive, profit-Seeking (DUP) activities. Journal of Political Economy, 90(5), 988–1002.Google Scholar
  17. Black, D. (1948). On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 56(1), 23–34.Google Scholar
  18. Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Blanes i Vidal, J., Draca, M., & Fons-Rosen, C. (2012). Revolving door lobbyists. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3731–3748.Google Scholar
  20. Blau, B. M., Brough, T. J., & Thomas, D. W. (2013). Corporate lobbying, political connections, and the bailout of banks. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(8), 3007–3017.Google Scholar
  21. Boyle, C. (2010). Lotteries for education. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  22. Brooks, M. A., & Heijdra, B. J. (1988). In search of rent-seeking. In C. Rowley, R. D. Tollison, & G. Tullock (Eds.), The political economy of rent-seeking. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Buchanan, J. M. (1954). Social choice, democracy, and free markets. Journal of Political Economy, 62(2), 114–123.Google Scholar
  24. Buchanan, J. M. (1980). Rent seeking and profit seeking. In J. M. Buchanan, R. D. Tollison, & G. Tullock (Eds.), Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Buchanan, J. M., & Congleton, R. D. (1998). Politics by principle, not interest: Toward nondiscriminatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  26. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1965). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  27. Caplan, B. (2008). The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Caplan, B. (2018). The case against education: Why the education system is a waste of time and money. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Coates, D. (2015). Growth effects of sports franchises, stadiums, and arenas: 15 years later. Working paper, Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center at George Mason University.Google Scholar
  30. Coke, Sir E. (2003). The case of monopolies. In S. Sheppard (Ed.), The selected writings and speeches of Sir Edward Coke. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  31. Condorcet, M. D. (1785). Essai sur l’application de l’analyse á la probabilité des décisions rendues á la pluralité des voix (Essay on the application of analysis to the probability of majority decisions). Paris: De l’imprimerie royale.Google Scholar
  32. Congleton, R. D. (1980). Competitive process, competitive waste, and institutions. In J. M. Buchanan, R. D. Tollison, & G. Tullock (Eds.), Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society (pp. 153–179). College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Congleton, R. D. (1991). Ideological conviction and persuasion in the rent-seeking society. Journal of Public Economics, 44(1), 65–86.Google Scholar
  34. Cornes, R., & Hartley, R. (2005). Asymmetric contests with general technologies. Economic Theory, 26(4), 923–946.Google Scholar
  35. Dari-Mattiacci, G., Langlais, E., Lovat, B., & Parisi, F. (2015). Asymmetries in rent seeking. In R. D. Congleton & A. L. Hillman (Eds.), Companion to the political economy of rent seeking (pp. 73–91). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub.Google Scholar
  36. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  37. Drutman, L. (2015). The business of America is lobbying: How corporations became politicized and politics became more corporate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Dunbar, R. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22(6), 469–493.Google Scholar
  39. Ekelund, R. B., Jr., & Tollison, R. D. (1982). Mercantilism as a rent-seeking society: Economic regulation in historical perspective. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ellingsen, T. (1991). Strategic buyers and the social cost of monopoly. The American Economic Review, 81(3), 648–657.Google Scholar
  41. Epstein, G. S., Hillman, A. L., & Ursprung, H. W. (1999). The king never emigrates. Review of Development Economics, 3(2), 107–121.Google Scholar
  42. Faccio, M. (2006). Politically connected firms. American Economic Review, 96(1), 369–386.Google Scholar
  43. Faccio, M. (2010). Differences between politically connected and nonconnected firms: A cross-country analysis. Financial Management, 39(3), 905–927.Google Scholar
  44. Faccio, M., & Parsley, D. C. (2009). Sudden deaths: Taking stock of geographic ties. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 44(3), 683–718.Google Scholar
  45. Farmer, A., & Pecorino, P. (1999). Legal expenditure as a rent-seeking game. Public Choice, 100(3–4), 271–288.Google Scholar
  46. Fisman, R. (2001). Estimating the value of political connections. American Economic Review, 91(4), 1095–1102.Google Scholar
  47. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1990). Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 1142–1164.Google Scholar
  48. Goldman, E., Rocholl, J., & So, J. (2009). Do politically connected boards affect firm value? The review of financial studies, 22(6), 2331–2360.Google Scholar
  49. Haber, S. (2002). Crony capitalism and economic growth in Latin America: Theory and evidence. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
  50. Hamilton, A. (1791). Report on the subject of manufactures. In The industrial and commercial correspondence of Alexander Hamilton anticipating his report on manufactures.Google Scholar
  51. Harberger, A. C. (1954). Monopoly and resource allocation. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 44(2), 77–87.Google Scholar
  52. Heberlig, E. S. (2003). Congressional parties, fundraising, and committee ambition. Political Research Quarterly, 56(2), 151–161.Google Scholar
  53. Hillman, A. L., & Katz, E. (1987). Hierarchical structure and the social costs of bribes and transfers. Journal of Public Economics, 34(2), 129–142.Google Scholar
  54. Hillman, A. L., & Riley, J. G. (1989). Politically contestable rents and transfers. Economics and Politics, 1(1), 17–39.Google Scholar
  55. Hillman, A. L., & Samet, D. (1987). Dissipation of contestable rents by small numbers of contenders. Public Choice, 54(1), 63–82.Google Scholar
  56. Hillman, A. L, & Ursprung, H. W. (2015). Rent seeking: The idea, the reality, and the ideological resistance. Department of Economics, International Trade and Development Seminar, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  57. Hillman, A. L., & Ursprung, H. W. (2016). Where are the rent seekers? Constitutional Political Economy, 27(2), 124–141.Google Scholar
  58. Hirshleifer, J. (1989). Conflict and rent-seeking success functions: Ratio vs. difference models of relative success. Public Choice, 63(2), 101–112.Google Scholar
  59. Holcombe, R. G. (2017). Political incentives for rent creation. Constitutional Political Economy, 28(1), 62–78.Google Scholar
  60. Holcombe, R. G., & Castillo, A. (2013). Liberalism and cronyism. Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center at George Mason University.Google Scholar
  61. Hoogenboom, A. A. (1982). Outlawing the spoils: A history of the civil service reform movement, 1865–1883. Westport, Conn: Praeger.Google Scholar
  62. Hurley, T. (1998). Rent dissipation and efficiency in a contest with asymmetric valuations. Public Choice, 94(3), 289–298.Google Scholar
  63. Kam, C. D., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2013). Name recognition and candidate support. American Journal of Political Science, 57(4), 971–986.Google Scholar
  64. Kang, D. C. (2002). Crony capitalism: Corruption and development in South Korea and the Philippines. Cambridge, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Katz, E., Nitzan, S., & Rosenberg, J. (1990). Rent-seeking for pure public goods. Public Choice, 65(1), 49–60.Google Scholar
  66. Kellermann, M., & Shepsle, K. A. (2009). Congressional careers, committee assignments, and seniority randomization in the U.S. House of Representatives. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 4(2), 87–101.Google Scholar
  67. Kimenyi, M. S., & Shughart, W. F., II. (2010). The political economy of constitutional choice: A study of the 2005 Kenyan constitutional referendum. Constitutional Political Economy, 21(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  68. Kohli, I., & Singh, N. (1999). Rent seeking and rent setting with asymmetric effectiveness of lobbying. Public Choice, 99(3/4), 275–298.Google Scholar
  69. Konrad, K. A. (2009). Strategy and dynamics in contests. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Kroszner, R. S., & Stratmann, T. (1998). Interest-group competition and the organization of Congress: Theory and evidence from financial services’ political action committees. The American Economic Review, 88(5), 1163–1187.Google Scholar
  71. Krueger, A. O. (1974). The political economy of the rent-seeking society. American Economic Review, 64(3), 291–303.Google Scholar
  72. Laband, D. N., & Sophocleus, J. P. (2018). Measuring rent-seeking. Public Choice, TBD(TBD), TBD.Google Scholar
  73. LaFaive, M. (2018). Prohibition by price: Cigarette taxes and unintended consequences. In A. Hoffer & T. Nesbit (Eds.), For your own good: Taxes, paternalism, and fiscal discrimination in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 327–350). Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center at George Mason University.Google Scholar
  74. Leibenstein, H. (1966). Allocative efficiency vs. ‘X-efficiency’. The American Economic Review, 56(3), 392–415.Google Scholar
  75. Leininger, W. (1993). More efficient rent-seeking: A Munchhausen solution. Public Choice, 75(1), 43–62.Google Scholar
  76. Lewis, H. (2013). Crony capitalism in America: 2008–2012. Edinburg, VA: AC2 Books.Google Scholar
  77. Li, P. P. (2009). The duality of crony corruption in economic transition: Toward an integrated framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1), 41–55.Google Scholar
  78. Matros, A. (2006). Rent-seeking with asymmetric valuations: Addition or deletion of a player. Public Choice, 129(3/4), 369–380.Google Scholar
  79. McChesney, F. S. (1987). Rent extraction and rent creation in the economic theory of regulation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 16(1), 101–118.Google Scholar
  80. McChesney, F. S. (1997). Money for nothing: Politicians, rent extraction, and political extortion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  81. McKelvey, R. D. (1976). Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control. Journal of Economic Theory, 12(3), 472–482.Google Scholar
  82. McKelvey, R. D. (1979). General conditions for global intransitivities in formal voting models. Econometrica, 47(5), 1085–1112.Google Scholar
  83. Millard, C. (2012). Destiny of the republic: A tale of madness, medicine and the murder of a president. New York, NY: Anchor.Google Scholar
  84. Mitchell, M. (2012). The pathology of privilege: The economic consequences of government favoritism. Mercatus Special Study. Arlington, VA.: Mercatus Center At George Mason University.Google Scholar
  85. Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Nti, K. O. (1999). Rent-seeking with asymmetric valuations. Public Choice, 98(3/4), 415–430.Google Scholar
  87. Parisi, F. (2002). Rent-seeking through litigation: Adversarial and inquisitorial systems compared. International Review of Law and Economics, 22(2), 193–216.Google Scholar
  88. Pearson, K. L. (2005). Party discipline in the contemporary congress: Rewarding loyalty in theory and in practice, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  89. Plott, C. R., & Levine, M. E. (1978). A model of agenda influence on committee decisions. American Economic Review, 68(1), 146–160.Google Scholar
  90. Polsby, N. W., Gallaher, M., & Rundquist, B. S. (1969). The growth of the seniority system in the U. S. House of Representatives. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 787–807.Google Scholar
  91. Posner, R. A. (1974). Theories of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 5(2), 335–358.Google Scholar
  92. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Rawls, J, & Kelly, E. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. U.S.A.: President and Fellows of Harvard College.Google Scholar
  94. Baugh, R. (2017). Annual flow report, U.S. lawful permanent residents: 2016. Washington, D.C: Office of Immigration Statistics.Google Scholar
  95. Riley, J. G. (1999). Asymmetric contests: A resolution of the Tullock Paradox. In P. Howitt, E. De Antoni, A. Leijonhufvud, & R. W. Clower (Eds.), Money, markets and method: Essays in honour of Robert W. Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub.Google Scholar
  96. Roberts, B. E. (1990). A dead senator tells no lies: Seniority and the distribution of federal benefits. American Journal of Political Science, 34(1), 31–58.Google Scholar
  97. Rogerson, W. P. (1982). The social costs of monopoly and regulation: A game-theoretic analysis. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 391–401.Google Scholar
  98. Rohde, D. W., & Shepsle, K. A. (1973). Democratic committee assignments in the House of Representatives: Strategic aspects of a social choice process. American Political Science Review, 67(3), 889–905.Google Scholar
  99. Romer, T., & Rosenthal, H. (1978). Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo: Introduction. Public Choice, 33(4), 27–43.Google Scholar
  100. Ryvkin, D. (2007). Tullock contests of weakly heterogeneous players. Public Choice, 132(1/2), 49–64.Google Scholar
  101. Schmidtz, D. (2006). The elements of justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Scrogin, D., Berrens, R. P., & Bohara, A. K. (2000). Policy changes and the demand for lottery-rationed big game hunting licenses. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 25(2), 501–519.Google Scholar
  103. Shepsle, K. A. (2017). Rule breaking and political imagination. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  104. Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. (1981). Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice, 37(3), 503–519.Google Scholar
  105. Singh, N., & Wittman, D. (2001). Contests where there is variation in the marginal productivity of effort. Economic Theory, 18(3), 711–744.Google Scholar
  106. Smith, A., & Yandle, B. (2014). Bootleggers and Baptists: How economic forces and moral persuasion interact to shape regulatory politics. Washington: Cato Institute.Google Scholar
  107. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374.Google Scholar
  108. Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
  109. Stigler, G. J. (1976). The xistence of x-efficiency. The American Economic Review, 66(1), 213–216.Google Scholar
  110. Storr, V. H., & Choi, S. G. (2018). A culture of rent-seeking. Public Choice, TBD(TBD), TBD.Google Scholar
  111. Stratmann, T., & Russ, T. (2014). Do certificate-of-need laws increase indigent care? Mercatus Center Working Paper, 14–20. University.Google Scholar
  112. Stulp, G., Buunk, A. P., Verhulst, S., & Pollet, T. V. (2013). Tall Claims? Sense and nonsense about the importance of height of US Presidents. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 159–171.Google Scholar
  113. Suen, W. (1989). Rationing and rent dissipation in the presence of heterogeneous individuals. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1384–1394.Google Scholar
  114. Tabarrok, A. (2018). ‘Get out of jail free’ cards. Marginal Revolution (blog). January 22, 2018. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/01/get-jail-free-cards.html.
  115. Taber, G. (2015). The night I invented crony capitalism. Knowledge@Wharton (blog). November 3, 2015. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/the-night-i-invented-crony-capitalism/.
  116. Tarczynska, K., & Mattera, P. (2017). Subsidy tracker 2. Washington, D.C.: Good Jobs First. https://www.goodjobsfirst.org/subsidy-tracker. Accessed 1 Apr 2018.
  117. Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623–1626.Google Scholar
  118. Tollison, R. D., & Wagner, R. E. (1992). The economics of smoking. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  119. Tullock, G. (1967). The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Western Economic Journal, 5(3), 224–232.Google Scholar
  120. Tullock, G. (1972). The purchase of politicians. Western Economic Journal, 10(3), 354–355.Google Scholar
  121. Tullock, G. (1975). On the efficient organization of trials. Kyklos, 28(4), 745–762.Google Scholar
  122. Tullock, G. (1980). Efficient rent seeking. In R. D. Tollison & G. Tullock (Eds.), Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society (pp. 97–112). College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  123. Tullock, G. (1989). The economics of special privilege and rent seeking. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  124. Tullock, G. (1997). Where is the rectangle? Public Choice, 91(2), 149–159.Google Scholar
  125. Van Long, N. (2013). The theory of contests: A unified model and review of the literature. European Journal of Political Economy, 32(December), 161–181.Google Scholar
  126. Wade, R. (1998). From ‘miracle’ to ‘cronyism’: Explaining the great Asian slump. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22(6), 693–706.Google Scholar
  127. Weingast, B. R., Shepsle, K. A., & Johnsen, C. (1981). The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distributive politics. Journal of Political Economy, 89(4), 642–664.Google Scholar
  128. Yandle, B. (1983). Bootleggers and Baptists: The education of a regulatory economist. AEI Journal on Government and Society, 7, 12–16.Google Scholar
  129. Zhang, Y. (2011). The successor’s dilemma in China’s single party political system. European Journal of Political Economy, 27(4), 674–680.Google Scholar
  130. Zingales, L. (2012). A capitalism for the people: Recapturing the lost genius of American prosperity. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mercatus CenterGeorge Mason UniversityArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations