A test of the institutionally-induced equilibrium hypothesis: on the limited fiscal impact of two celebrity governors

  • Roger D. CongletonEmail author
  • Yang Zhou
Original Paper


The governorships of Jesse Ventura of Minnesota and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California provide two natural experiments for testing the institutionally induced stability hypothesis. Both men rose to their governorships through unique career and electoral paths that would reduce the stabilizing effects of partisan commitments and electoral competition, which would tend to increase their impact on public policy. Nonetheless, our evidence suggests that despite their unique backgrounds and paths to office neither governor had a statistically significant impact on their state’s expenditures or deficits.


Government experience Natural experiment Outsidership Governor Fiscal policy Minnesota Jesse Ventura California Arnold Schwarzenegger 

JEL Classifications

H71 H72 H77 


  1. Abadie A, Gardeazabal J (2003) The economic costs of conflict: a case study of the Basque Country. Am Econ Rev 93(1):113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abadie A, Diamond A, Hainmueller J (2015) Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. Am J Polit Sci 59(2):495–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alesina A (1988) Credibility and policy convergence in a two-party system with rational voters. Am Econ Rev 78:796–806Google Scholar
  4. Arrow KJ (1951/2012) Social choice and individual values, vol 12. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  5. Atesoglu HS, Congleton R (1982) Economic conditions and national elections, post-sample forecasts of the Kramer equations. Am Polit Sci Rev 76(4):873–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker G (1983) A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Q J Econ 98(3):371–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Besley T, Coate S (1997) An economic model of representative democracy. Quart J Econ 112:85–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Besley T, Montalvo J, Reynal-Querol M (2011) Do educated leaders matter? Econ J 121:205–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brennan G, Hamlin A (2000) Democratic devices and desires. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchanan JM, Tullock G (1962) The calculus of consent. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Congleton RD (1982) A model of asymmetric bureaucratic inertia and bias. Public Choice 39(3):421–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Congleton RD (1992) Political institutions and pollution control. Rev Econ Stat 74:412–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Congleton RD, Swedenborg B (eds) (2006) Democratic constitutional design and public policy: analysis and evidence. MIT Press, Cambridge, p 373Google Scholar
  14. Congleton RD, Zhang JJ (2013) Is it all about competence? The human capital of U.S. presidents and economic performance”. Const Polit Econ 24:108–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coughlin P, Nitzan S (1981) Electoral outcomes with probabilistic voting and Nash social welfare maxima. J Public Econ 15:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crain WM, Tollison RD (1979) Constitutional change in an interest-group perspective. J Leg Stud 8(1):165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dal Bó E, Finan F, Folke O, Persson T, Rickne J (2017) Who becomes a politician? Q J Econ 132(4):1877–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doucouliagos H, Ulubaşoğlu MA (2008) Democracy and economic growth: a meta-analysis. Am J Polit Sci 52(1):61–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Downs A (1957) An economic theory of political action in a democracy. J Polit Econ 65(2):135–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dreher A, Lamla MJ, Lein SM, Somogyi F (2009) The impact of political leaders’ profession and education on reforms. J Comp Econ 37(1):169–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duverger M (1963) Political parties: their organization and activity in the modern state. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Grier KB, Tullock G (1989) An empirical analysis of cross-national economic growth, 1951–1980. J Monet Econ 24(2):259–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grofman B, Lijphart A (2003) Electoral laws and their political consequences. Algora Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Groseclose T (2001) A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. Am J Polit Sci 45:862–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grossman G, Helpman E (1994) Protection for sale. Am Econ Rev 84(4):833–850Google Scholar
  26. Jochimsen B, Thomasius S (2014) The perfect finance minister: whom to appoint as finance minister to balance the budget. Eur J Polit Econ 34:390–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones BF, Olken BA (2005) Do leaders matter? National leadership and growth since World War II. Q J Econ 120(3):835–864Google Scholar
  28. Knack S, Keefer P (1995) Institutions and economic performance: cross-country tests using alternative institutional measures. Econ Politics 7(3):207–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McKelvey RD (1976) Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control. J Econ Theory 12(3):472–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moessinger MD (2014) Do the personal characteristics of finance ministers affect changes in public debt? Public Choice 161(1–2):183–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peltzman S (1976) Toward a more general theory of regulation. J Law Econ 19(2):211–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Persson T, Roland G, Tabellini G (2000) Comparative politics and public finance. J Polit Econ 108(6):1121–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shepsle KA, Weingast BR (1981) Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice 37(3):503–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tsebelis G (2002) Veto players: how political institutions work. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tullock G (1980) Efficient rent seeking, in Buchanan. In: Buchanan JM, Tollison RD, Tullock G (eds) Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society. Texas A&M Press, College Park, pp 97–112; reprinted in Congleton RD, Hillman AL, Konrad KA (eds) (2008) Forty years of research on rent seeking. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 105–120Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations