Geographical redistribution with disproportional representation: a politico-economic model of Norwegian road projects
- 147 Downloads
Politicians bias public policies to favor particular election districts. According to the traditional common pool model, districts facing low tax shares should receive relatively large government projects. We suggest a swing-voter model where the number of voters on the ideological cut point, lack of party identification and number of district representatives per voter determine project sizes. We analyze the allocation of state road investments in Norway from 1973–1997 exploiting unique data on characteristics of voters, legislative representation and tax prices in 19 election districts. Geographical representation to parliament is biased, mostly due to an ancient constitution. Shares of swing voters and legislative over-representation lead to higher levels of road investments, while high levels of party identification reduce investments.
KeywordsDistributive politics Proportional representation Game theory Party competition Infrastructure investments
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Ansolabere, S., Gerber, A., & Snyder, J. (2002). Eequal votes, equal money: court-ordered redistricting and the distribution of public expenditures in the American states. American Political Science Review, 96, 767–777. Google Scholar
- Atlas, C., Gilligan, T., Hendershott, R., & Zupan, M. (1995). Slicing the federal governments net spending pie: who wins, who loses, and why. American Economic Review, 85, 624–629. Google Scholar
- Baron, D. (1993). A theory of collective choice for government programs. Research Paper 1240, Stanford Business School. Google Scholar
- Chari, V., & Cole, H. (1995). A contribution to the theory of pork barrel spending (Mimeo). Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Google Scholar
- Drazen, A. (2000). Political economy in macroeconomics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
- Gilligan, T., & Matsusaka, J. (2001). Fiscal policy, legislature size, and political parties: evidence from state and local governments in the first half of the 20th century. National Tax Journal, 54(1), 57–82. Google Scholar
- Inman, R., & Fitts, M. (1990). Political institutions and fiscal policy: evidence from the US historical record. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 6, 79–132. Google Scholar
- Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2000). Political economics: explaining economic policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
- Strömberg, D. (1998). Radio’s impact on public spending (Mimeo). Stockholm, Institute for International Economic Studies. Google Scholar
- Wittman, D. (1995). The myth of democratic failure: why political institutions are efficient. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar