Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 175, Issue 1–2, pp 19–36 | Cite as

Supermajority rule, the law of 1/n, and government spending: a synthesis

  • Paul Pecorino
Article
  • 152 Downloads

Abstract

I develop models in which a minimum winning coalition decides on the level of government spending, where the Coase theorem holds amongst members of the winning coalition. An increase in the supermajority requirement has potentially conflicting effects on spending. A higher requirement increases the tax price internalized by the minimum winning coalition, but also increases the number of districts included in this coalition. I develop separate models in which the spending in question consists of (i) a nonexcludable good, (ii) a distributive consumption good, (iii) infrastructure spending and (iv) a transfer payment. A supermajority rule has no effect on spending for nonexcludable goods and ambiguous effects on spending for distributive projects and infrastructure spending. An increased supermajority requirement does unambiguously reduce transfer spending. I also relate the supermajority rule to the law of 1/n. If the Coase Theorem holds and a minimum winning coalition forms, an increase in the number of districts n has precisely the same effect on overall expenditure as a decrease in the supermajority requirement. Thus, the ambiguous spending effects stemming from supermajority rule carry over into this version of the law of 1/n.

Keywords

Supermajority voting requirement Law of 1/n Government spending 

JEL Classification

D72 H40 D78 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank an anonymous referee, William B. Hankins, Arye Hillman, Natalia Kolesnikova, Matt Van Essen, and participants at the Public Choice Society Meeting and the University of Alabama Brown Bag workshop for providing helpful comments on this paper.

References

  1. Aumann, R. J., Kurz, M., & Neyman, A. (1987). Power and public goods. Journal of Economic Theory, 42, 108–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baqir, R. (2002). Districting and government overspending. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 1318–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, D. P. (1991). Majoritarian incentives, pork barrel programs, and procedural control. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 57–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bel, G., Raudla, R., Rodrigues, M., & Tavares, A. F. (2017). These rules are made for spending: Testing and extending the law of 1/n. Public Choice, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  5. Bradbury, J. C., & Crain, W. M. (2001). Legislative organization and government spending: Cross-country evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 82, 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. M. (1980). The power to tax: Analytical foundations of a fiscal constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, J., & Malhotra, N. (2007). The law of K/N: The effect of chamber size on government spending in bicameral legislatures. American Political Science Review, 101, 657–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coase, R. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conley, J. P., & Temimi, A. (2001). Endogenous enfranchisement when groups’ preferences conflict. Journal of Political Economy, 109, 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crowley, G. R. (2015). Local intergovernmental competition and the law of 1/n. Southern Economic Journal, 81, 742–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Egger, P., & Koethenbuerger, M. (2010). Government spending and legislative organization: Quasi-experimental evidence from Germany. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 200–212.Google Scholar
  13. Gilligan, T. W., & Matsusaka, J. G. (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, 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gradstein, M. (1999). Optimal taxation and fiscal constitution. Journal of Public Economics, 72, 471–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hankins, W. B. (2015). Government spending, shocks, and the role of legislature size: Evidence from the American states. Social Science Quarterly, 96, 1059–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heckelman, J. C., & Dougherty, K. L. (2010). Majority rule versus supermajority rules: Their effects on narrow and broad taxes. Public Finance Review, 38, 738–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Höhmann, D. (2017). The effect of legislature size on public spending: Evidence from a regression discontinuity design. Public Choice, 173, 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knight, B. G. (2000). Supermajority voting requirements for tax increases: Evidence from the states. Journal of Public Economics, 76, 41–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee, D. (2016a). Supermajority rule and the law of 1/n. Public Choice, 164, 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee, D. (2016b). Supermajority rule and bicameral bargaining. Public Choice, 169, 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee, D., Borcherding, T. E., & Kang, Y. (2014). Public spending and the paradox of supermajority rule. Southern Economic Journal, 80, 614–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McGuire, M. C., & Olson, M. (1996). The economics of autocracy and majority rule. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 72–96.Google Scholar
  23. Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pettersson-Lidbom, P. (2012). Does the size of the legislature affect the size of government? Evidence from two natural experiments. Journal of Public Economics, 96, 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Primo, D. M., & Snyder, J. M. (2008). Distributive politics and the law of 1/n. Journal of Politics, 70, 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Riker, W. H. (1962). The theory of political coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tullock, G. (1959). Problems of majority voting. Journal of Political Economy, 67, 571–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weingast, B. R., Shepsle, K. A., & Johnsen, C. (1981). The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distributive politics. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 642–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, Finance and Legal StudiesUniversity of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations