Advertisement

The Review of International Organizations

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 447–476 | Cite as

Political ideology, quality at entry and the success of economic reform programs

  • Lodewijk SmetsEmail author
  • Stephen Knack
  • Nadia Molenaers
Article

Abstract

This study investigates how government ideology matters for the success of World Bank economic policy loans, which typically support market-liberalizing reforms. A simple model predicts that World Bank staff will invest more effort in designing an economic policy loan when faced with a left-wing government. Empirically, estimates from a Heckman selection model show that the quality at entry of an economic policy loan is significantly higher for governments with a left-wing party orientation. This result is robust to changes in the sample, alternative measures of ideology, different estimation techniques and the inclusion of additional control variables. Next, robust findings from estimating a recursive triangular system of equations indicate that leftist governments comply more fully with loan agreements. Results also suggest that World Bank resources are more productive—in terms of reform success—in the design of policy operations than in their supervision. Anecdotal evidence from several country cases is consistent with the finding that left-wing governments receive higher quality loans.

Keywords

Development policy lending World Bank Political ideology Heckman selection model Triangular system of equations 

JEL Classification

C24 C30 O16 O19 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the DPL team task leaders for making time available for the interviews, Peter Moll, Adam Wagstaff and Bruno De Borger for valuable comments, the editor of this journal and two anonymous referees for useful comments and suggestions, Vincenzo Verardi for helpful conversations, Christian Bjørnskov for sharing his data and Tim De Vaan and René Vandendries for providing insight in the IEG ratings. The authors are solely responsible for any remaining errors. Lodewijk Smets is also indebted to the Institute of Development Policy and Management (IOB) for providing a research grant.

Supplementary material

11558_2013_9164_MOESM1_ESM.zip (3.2 mb)
(ZIP 3.20 MB)

References

  1. Akerlof, G.A., & Dickens, W.T. (1982). The economic consequences of cognitive dissonance. The American Economic Review, 72(3), 307–319.Google Scholar
  2. Alesina, A. (1988). Credibility and policy convergence in a two-party system with rational voters. The American Economic Review, 78(4), 796–805.Google Scholar
  3. Alesina, A., & Cukierman, A. (1990). The politics of ambiguity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(4), 829–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen, T.B., Hansen, H., Markussen, H. (2006). US politics and World Bank IDA-lending. The Journal of Development Studies, 42(5), 772–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, N. (1982). Parties, administrations, and American macroeconomic outcomes. The American Political Science Review, 76(1), 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, T., Clarke, G., Groff, A., Keefer, P., Walsh, P. (2001). New tools in comparative political economy: the database of political institutions. The World Bank Economic Review, 15(1), 165–176. http://go.worldbank.org/2EAGGLRZ40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Besley, T., & Case, A. (2003). Political institutions and policy choices: evidence from the United States. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(1), 7–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Besley, T., Montalvo, J.G., Reynal-Querol, M. (2011). Do educated leaders matter? Economic Journal, 121(554), F205–F227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bienen, H., & Van De Walle, N. (1989). Time and power in Africa. The American Political Science Review, 83(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bjørnskov, C. (2005). Does political ideology affect economic growth? Public Choice, 123, 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bjørnskov, C. (2008). The growth-inequality association: government ideology matters. Journal of Development Economics, 87(2), 300–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bortolotti, B., & Pinotti, P. (2008). Delayed privatization. Public Choice, 136(3), 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bueno de Mesquita, B., Morrow, J.D., Siverson, R.M., Smith, A. (2002). Political institutions, policy choice and the survival of leaders. British Journal of Political Science, 32(4), 559–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chai, S.-K. (1998). Endogenous ideology formation and economic policy in former colonies. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 46(2), 263–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chauvet, L., Collier, P., Fuster, A. (2006). Supervision and project performance: A principal-agent approach. University of Oxford: Centre for the Study of African Economies.Google Scholar
  16. Cowen, T., & Sutter, D. (1998). Why only Nixon could go to China. Public Choice, 97(4), 605–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cukierman, A., & Tommasi, M. (1998). When does it take a Nixon to go to China? American Economic Review, 88, 180–197.Google Scholar
  18. Denizer, C., Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. (2011). Good countries or good projects? Macro and micro correlates of World Bank project performance. Policy Research Working Paper Series 5646, The World Bank.Google Scholar
  19. Dijkstra, G.A. (2002). The effectiveness of policy conditionality: eight countries experiences. Development and Change, 33(2), 307–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dollar, D., & Svensson, J. (2000). What explains the success or failure of structural adjustment programmes?The Economic Journal, 110, 894–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Drazen, A. (2000). Political economy in macroeconomics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dreher, A., Klasen, S., Vreeland, J.R.,Werker, E. (2010). The costs of favoritism: is politically-driven aid less effective? CESifo Working Paper Series 2993, CESifo Group Munich.Google Scholar
  23. Dreher, A., Lamla, M.J., Lein, S.M., Somogyi, F. (2009a). The impact of political leaders’ profession and education on reforms. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(1), 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dreher, A., & Sturm, J.-E. (2012). Do the IMF and the World Bank influence voting in the UN General Assembly? Public Choice, 151(1), 363–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dreher, A., Sturm, J.-E., Vreeland, J.R. (2009b). Development aid and international politics: does membership on the UN security council influence World Bank decisions?Journal of Development Economics, 88(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dutt, P., & Mitra, D. (2005). Political ideology and endogenous trade policy: an empirical investigation. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(1), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dutt, P., & Mitra, D. (2006). Labor versus capital in trade-policy: the role of ideology and inequality. Journal of International Economics, 69(2), 310–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frey, B.S., & Schneider, F. (1978). An empirical study of politico-economic interaction in the United States. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 60(2), 174–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gilad, B., Kaish, S., Loeb, P.D. (1987). Cognitive dissonance and utility maximization: a general framework. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 8(1), 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glazer, A., & Grofman, B. (1989). Why representatives are ideologists though voters are not. Public Choice, 61(1), 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haggard, S., & Webb, S. (Eds.) (1994). Voting for reform: Democracy, political liberalisation, and economic adjustment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Heckman, J.J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hibbs, D.A. (1977). Political parties and macroeconomic policy. The American Political Science Review, 71(4), 1467–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hirschman, A.O. (1965). Obstacles to development: a classification and a quasi-vanishing act. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 13(4), 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. IEG. (2006). . Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
  36. James, J., & Gutkind, E. (1985). Attitude change revisited: cognitive dissonance theory and development policy. World Development, 13(10–11), 1139–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones, B.F., & Olken, B.A. (2005). Do leaders matter? National leadership and growth since World War II. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 835–864.Google Scholar
  38. Kapur, D., Lewis, J.P., Webb, R. (1997). The World Bank: Its first half century. Volume 1. History. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kilby, C. (2000). Supervision and performance: the case of World Bank projects. Journal of Development Economics, 62(1), 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kilby, C. (2009). The political economy of conditionality: an empirical analysis of World Bank loan disbursements. Journal of Development Economics, 89(1), 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kilby, C. (2011). The political economy of project preparation: An empirical analysis of world bank projects. Villanova School of Business Department of Economics and Statistics Working Paper Series 14, Villanova School of Business Department of Economics and Statistics.Google Scholar
  42. Killick, T. (1997). Principals, agents and the failings of conditionality. Journal of International Development, 9(4), 483–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Knack, S. (2012). When do donors trust recipient country systems? Policy Research Working Paper Series 6019, The World Bank.Google Scholar
  44. Krueger, A.O. (1993). Political economy of policy reform in developing countries. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lahiri, K., & Schmidt, P. (1978). On the estimation of triangular structural systems. Econometrica, 46(5), 1217–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Malesa, T., & Silarszky, P. (2005). Does World Bank Effort matter for success of adjustment operations? Conditionality revisited: Concepts, experiences, and lessons (pp. 127–141). Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
  47. Meseguer, C. (2006). Learning and economic policy choices. European Journal of Political Economy, 22(1), 156–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mosley, P., Harrigan, J., Toye, J. (1991). Aid and power: The World Bank and policy-based lending Volume 1. Analysis and policy proposals. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Murshed, S.M. (2009). On the non-contractual nature of donor-recipient interaction in development assistance. Review of Development Economics, 13(s1), 416–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Navia, P., & Velasco, A. (2003). The politics of second-generation reforms. In P.-P. Kuczynski, & J. Williamson (Eds.) After the Washington consensus: Restarting growth and reform in Latin America. Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  51. Noorbakhsh, F., & Paloni, A. (2007). Learning from structural adjustment: why selectivity may not be the key to successful programmes in Africa. Journal of International Development, 19(7), 927– 948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2000). Political economics, explaining economic policy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Pitlik, H. (2007). A race to liberalization? Diffusion of economic policy reform among OECD-economies. Public Choice, 132(1), 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Potrafke, N. (2010). Does government ideology influence deregulation of product markets? Empirical evidence from OECD countries. Public Choice, 143(1), 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ranis, G., & Mahmood, S.A. (1992). The political economy of development policy change. Cambridge, MA and Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  56. Rodrik, D. (2006). Goodbye Washington consensus, hello Washington confusion? Journal of Economic Literature, 44(4), 973–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roemer, J.E. (1997). Politicaleconomic equilibrium when parties represent constituents: the unidimensional case. Social Choice and Welfare, 14, 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roemer, J.E. (1999). The democratic political economy of progressive income taxation. Econometrica, 67(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shirk, D.A. (2004). Mexico’s new politics: the PAN and democratic change. Lynne Riener.Google Scholar
  60. Stromberg, D. (2007). Natural disasters, economic development, and humanitarian aid. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Svensson, J. (2000). When is foreign aid policy credible? Aid dependence and conditionality. Journal of Development Economics, 61(1), 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Svensson, J. (2003). Why conditional aid does not work and what can be done about it? Journal of Development Economics, 70(2), 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Terai, K. (2006). Parties with policy preferences and uncertainty over voter behavior. Social Choice and Welfare, 27, 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wane, W. (2004). The quality of foreign aid: Country selectivity or donors incentives? Policy Research Working Paper Series 3325, The World Bank.Google Scholar
  65. Williamson, J. (1994). The political economy of policy reform. No. 68 in Peterson Institute Press: All Books. Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  66. Wittman, D. (1983). Candidate motivation: a synthesis of alternative theories. The American Political Science Review, 77(1), 142–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. World Bank. (2002). Mexico country economic memorandum: Challenges and prospects for tax reform. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
  68. World Bank. (2004). Zambia country economic memorandum: Policies for growth and diversification. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
  69. World Bank. (2005). Mozambique country economic memorandum: Sustaining growth and reducing poverty. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lodewijk Smets
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stephen Knack
    • 2
  • Nadia Molenaers
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Development Policy and ManagementUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpenBelgium
  2. 2.World BankWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations