Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 387–411 | Cite as

Corruption and bicameral reforms

  • Giovanni Facchini
  • Cecilia TestaEmail author
Original Paper


During the last decade unicameral proposals have been put forward in fourteen US states. In this paper we analyze the effects of the proposed constitutional reforms, in a setting where decision making is subject to ‘hard time constraints’, and lawmakers face the opposing interests of a lobby and the electorate. We show that bicameralism might lead to a decline in the lawmakers’ bargaining power vis-a-vis the lobby, thus compromising their accountability to voters. Hence, bicameralism is not a panacea against the abuse of power by elected legislators and the proposed unicameral reforms could be effective in reducing corruption among elected representatives.


Bargaining Power Vote Strategy Legislative Body Closed Rule Electoral Accountability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ansolabehere S, Snyder J, James M, Ting MM (2003a) Bargaining in bicameral legislatures: when and why does malapportionment matter? Am Polit Sci Rev 97(3):471–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere S, Snyder JM, Ting MM (2003b) Bargaining in bicameral legislatures: when and why does malapportionment matter? Am Polit Sci Rev 97:471–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron D, Ferejohn J (1989) Bargaining in legislatures. Am Polit Sci Rev 83:1181–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernheim BD, Rangel A, Rayo L (2006) The power of the last word in legislative policy making. Econometrica 74:1161–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradbury JC, Crain WM (2001) Legislative organization and government spending: cross-country evidence. J Public Econ 82:309–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang E, Tsebelis G (2002) Veto players and the structure of budgets in advanced industrialized countries. In: Tsebelis G (ed) Veto players: how institutions work, Chapter 8. Princeton Universty Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Corporate Crime Reporter (2004) Public corruption in the United States, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  8. Cox GW (2006) The organization of democratic legislatures. In: Weingast BR, Wittman DA (eds) The Oxford handbook of political economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 140–161Google Scholar
  9. Cutrone M, McCarty N (2006) Does bicameralism matter? In: Weingast BR, Wittman DA (eds) The Oxford handbook of political economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 180–195Google Scholar
  10. Diermeier D, Eraslan H, Merlo A (2007) Bicameralism and government formation. Q J Polit Sci 2:227–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diermeier D, Myerson RB (1999) Bicameralism and its consequences for the internal organization of legislatures. Am Econ Rev 89:1182–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Druckman JN, Thies M (2002) The importance of concurrence: the impact of bicameralism on government formation and duration. Am J Polit Sci 46:760–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eckl C (1998) Late state budgets. NCSL Legisbrief 6(14)Google Scholar
  14. Ewing CMD (1937) Lobbying in Nebraska’s legislature. Public Opin Q 2:103–104Google Scholar
  15. Facchini G, Testa C (2009) Reforming legislatures: is one house better than two? Working Paper 2659, CES-IfoGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferejohn J (1986) Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice 50:5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiorina MP (1981) Retrospective voting in American national elections. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  18. Franzese RJ (2007) Fiscal policy with multiple policymakers: Veto actors and deadlock, collective action and common pools, bargaining and compromise. In: Magara H (ed) Veto players and policy change. Waseda University Press, Tokyo, pp 118–161Google Scholar
  19. Glaeser EL, Saks RE (2006) Corruption in America. J Public Econ 90:1053–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grier KB, Munger MC (1993) Comparing interest group pac contributions to House and Senate incumbents, 1980–1986. J Polit 55(3):615–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Groseclose T, Snyder J (1996) Buying supermajorities. Am Polit Sci Rev 90:303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heller WB (2001) Political denials: the policy effect of intercameral partisan differences in bicameral parliamentary systems. J Law Econ Org 17:34–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hickey R (2013) Bicameral bargaining and federation formation. Public Choice 154:217–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knight B (2005) Estimating the value of proposal power. Am Econ Rev 95(5):1639–1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knight B (2008) Legislative representation, bargaining power and the distribution of federal funds: evidence from the us congress. Econ J 118:1785–1803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kofman F, Lawarree J (1993) Collusion in hierarchical agency. Econometrica 61:629–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kofman F, Lawarree J (1996) On the optimality of allowing collusion. J Public Econ 61:383–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kolasa BD (1971) Lobbying in the nonpartisan environment: the case of Nebraska. Public Opin Q 24:65–78Google Scholar
  29. Levmore S (1992) Bicameralism: when are two decisions bettern than one. Int Rev Law Econ 12:145–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Madison J (1788) Federalist Paper 62. In: Jay J, Hamilton A, Madison J (eds) The federalist or the new constitution. Everyman Edition, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Maskin E, Tirole J (2004) The politician and the judge: accountability in government. Am Econ Rev 94:1034–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mishra A (2002) Hierarchies, incentives and collusion in a model of enforcement. J Econ Behav Org 47:165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muthoo A, Shepsle KA (2008) The constitutional choice of bicameralism. In: Helpman E (ed) Institutions and economics performance. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Osborne M, Rubinstein A (1990) Bargaining and markets. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  35. Persson T, Roland G, Tabellini G (1997) Separation of powers and political accountability. Q J Econ 112:1163–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Riker WH (1992) The justification of bicameralism. Int Polit Sci Rev 12:101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rogers JM (1999) Judicial review standards in unicameral legislative systems: a positive theoretic and historic analysis. Creighton Law Rev 33:65–120Google Scholar
  38. Romer T, Snyder JM (1994) An empirical investigation of the dynamics of PAC contributions. Am Polit Sci Rev 38:745–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rose-Ackerman S (2006) International handbook on the economics of corruption. Edward Elgar Publishing, NothamptonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shumate RV (1952) The nebraska unicameral legislature. Public Opin Q 52:504–512Google Scholar
  41. Snyder James MJ, Ting MM, Ansolabehere S (2005) Legislative bargaining under weighted voting. Am Econ Rev 95(4):981–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Testa C (2010) Bicameralism and corruption. Eur Econ Rev 54:181–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tsebelis G (1995) Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism, and multipartyism. Br J Polit Sci 25:289–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tsebelis G, Money J (1997) Bicameralism. Cambdrige University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ventura J (1998) Jesse Ventura on government reform. Every political leader on every issue. (on the issues)
  46. Voigt S (2012) Design of constitutions. Edward Elgar Publishing, NorthamptonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Nottingham, Universita’ degli Studi di Milano, CEPR, CES-Ifo, CReAM, GEP, IZA and LdANottinghamUK
  2. 2.University of Nottingham LdA and NICEPNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations