Public Choice

, Volume 161, Issue 1–2, pp 233–255 | Cite as

Voter information and electoral outcomes: the Norwegian list of shame

  • Arnt O. HoplandEmail author


This paper studies the effect on vote shares and reelection probability for the incumbent’s party from a signal indicating poor fiscal performance. In Norway, local governments with persistent deficits are placed in the Register for State Review and Approval of Financial Obligations (Robek). In addition to increased central government monitoring, placement in Robek triggers a great deal of attention in the local media. It is thus expected to raise voter awareness of the fiscal stance of the local government. The results indicate that voters value the information embedded in this signal, and take it into account when casting their votes. Both the share of votes for the incumbent’s party and the probability that the incumbent party stays in office is significantly reduced as a consequence of the local government being included in the register. The vote share for the incumbent is reduced by about three percentage points, while the reelection probability is reduced by about 0.12.


Local government Decentralization Fiscal discipline Transparency 

JEL Classification

D72 H72 H77 



Valuable comments and suggestions from Lars-Erik Borge, Kåre Johansen, Jarle Møen, Jørn Rattsø, Guttorm Schjelderup, William Shughart (Editor in Chief), Georg Vanberg (associate editor), and three anonymous referees are much appreciated. I am grateful to the Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development for providing me data on entries to and exits from Robek, in particular Evy Tynes Johnsen. Some of the data are obtained from the Norwegian Social Science Data Services. All errors are my own.


  1. Akhmedov, A., & Zhuravskaya, E. (2004). Opportunistic political cycles: Test in a young democracy setting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 1301–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., Perotti, A., & Tavares, J. (1998). The political economy of fiscal adjustments. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 197–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borge, L.-E. (2005). Strong politicians, small deficits: Evidence from Norwegian local governments. European Journal of Political Economy, 21, 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borge, L.-E., Falch, T., & Tovmo, P. (2008). Public sector efficiency: The roles of political and budgetary institutions, fiscal capacity, and democratic participation. Public Choice, 136, 475–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borge, L.-E., & Hopland, A. O. (2012). Maintenance and building conditions in Norwegian local governments: Economic and political determinants. Working Paper No. 8/2012. Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  6. Borge, L.-E., & Rattsø, J. (2002). Local government budgeting and borrowing: Norway. In B. Dafflon (Ed.), Local public finance in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  7. Brender, A. (2003). The effect of fiscal performance on local government election results in Israel: 1989–1998. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 2187–2205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brender, A., & Drazen, A. (2008). How do budget deficits and economic growth affect reelection prospects? Evidence from a large panel of countries. American Economic Review, 98, 2203–2220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drazen, A., & Eslava, M. (2010). Electoral manipulation via voter-friendly spending: Theory and evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 92, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferraz, C., & Finan, F. (2008). Exposing corrupt politicians: The effects of Brazil’s publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123, 703–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodspeed, T. J. (2002). Bailouts in a Federation. International Tax and Public Finance, 9, 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hopland, A. O. (2013a). Central government control and fiscal adjustment: Norwegian evidence. Economics of Governance, 14, 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hopland, A. O. (2013b). One size fits all? Facility management in Norwegian local governments. Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  14. Kalseth, J., & Rattsø, J. (1998). Political control of administrative spending: The case of local governments in Norway. Economics and Politics, 10, 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Matsusaka, J. G. (2005). Direct democracy works. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nordhaus, W. (1975). The political business cycle. Review of Economic Studies, 42, 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peltzman, S. (1992). Voters as fiscal conservatives. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 327–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pettersson-Lidbom, P. (2010). Dynamic commitment and the soft budget constraint: An empirical test. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2, 154–179.Google Scholar
  19. Prud’homme, R. (1995). On the dangers of decentralization. The World Bank Research Observer, 10, 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rogoff, K. (1990). Equilibrium political budget cycles. American Economic Review, 80, 21–36.Google Scholar
  21. Rogoff, K., & Sibert, A. (1988). Elections and macroeconomic policy cycles. Review of Economic Studies, 55, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roubini, N., & Sachs, J. (1989). Political and economic determinants of budget deficits in the industrial democracies. European Economic Review, 33, 903–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sakurai, S. N., & Menezes-Filho, N. A. (2008). Fiscal policy and reelection in Brazilian municipalities. Public Choice, 137, 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shi, M., & Svensson, J. (2006). Political budget cycles: Do they differ across countries and why? Journal of Public Economics, 90, 1367–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business and Management Science, NoCeTNorwegian School of EconomicsBergenNorway
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  3. 3.Department of Business and Management ScienceNHHBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations