Skip to main content
Log in

Cheap bribes and the corruption ban: A coordination game among rational legislators

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Legislators in modern democracies (a) accept bribes that are small compared to the value of the statutes they pass and (b) allow bans against bribery to be enforced. In our model of bribery, rational legislators accept bribes smaller not only than the benefit the briber receives but than the costs the legislators incur in accepting the bribes. Rather than risk this outcome, the legislators may be willing to suppress bribery altogether. The size of legislatures, the quality of voter information, the nature of party organization, and the structure of committees will all influence the frequency and size of bribes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Austen-Smith, D. and Wright, J. (1992). Competitive lobbying for legislators' votes.Social Choice and Welfare 9: 229–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B., Ekelund, R., Jr. and Tollison, R. (1980). Mercantilism as a rent-seeking society. In Buchanan, Tollison and Tullock (1980).

  • Browning, E. (1980). On the welfare cost of transfers. In Buchanan, Tollison and Tullock (1980).

  • Buchanan, J., Tollison, R. and Tullock, G. (Eds.) (1980).Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cough, J., Atkinson, K. and Shughart, W. (1992). Ethics laws and outside earnings of politicians: The case of Alabama's legislator-educators.Public Choice 73: 135–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G. (1987).The efficient secret: The cabinet and the development of political parties in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crain, W.M. and Tollison, R. (1980). The size of majorities.Southern Economic Journal 46: 726–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzau, A. and Munger, M. (1986). Legislators and interest groups: How unorganized interests get represented.American Political Science Review 80: 89–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzau, A., Riker, W. and Shepsle, K. (1985). Farquharson and Fenno: Sophisticated voting and home style.American Political Science Review 79: 1117–1134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan, W. and Munger, M. (1989). The rationality of ideology.Journal of Law and Economics 32: 119–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferejohn, J. and Calvert, R. (1984). Presidential coattails in historical perspective.American Journal of Political Science 28: 127–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, R. and Riley, J. (1989). Politically contestable rents and transfers.Economics and Politics 1: 17–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inoguchi, T. and Iwai, T. (1987).Zoku giin no kenkyu [A study of “tribal representatives”]. Tokyo: Nippon keizai shimbun sha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalt, J. and Zupan, M. (1984). Capture and ideology in the economic theory of politics.American Economic Review 74: 279–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kau, J. and Rubin, P. (1979). Self-interest, ideology, and logrolling in congressional voting.Journal of Law and Economics 22: 365–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, M. (1988). On democracy-bashing: A skeptical look at the theoretical and empirical practice of the Public Choice movement.Virginia Law Review 74: 199–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes, W. and Posner, R. (1975). The independent judiciary in an interest-group perspective.Journal of Law and Economics 18: 875–901.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lott, J., Jr. (1987). Political cheating.Public Choice 52: 169–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • McChesney, F. (1987). Rent extraction and rent creation in the economic theory of regulation.Journal of Legal Studies 16: 101–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. and Tollison, R. (1980). Wealth transfers in a representative democracy. In Buchanan, Tollison and Tullock (1980).

  • Mikva, A. (1988). Foreword [to symposium on public choice].Virginia Law Review 74: 167–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J. (1950). The bargaining problem.Econometrica 18: 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, D. and Silberberg, E. (1987). Ideology and legislator shirking.Economic Inquiry 25: 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noonan, J. (1984).Bribes. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. (1992). The distribution of honoraria income in the U.S. Congress: Who gets rents in legislatures and why?Public Choice 73: 167–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltzman, S. (1976). Toward a more general theory of regulation.Journal of Law and Economics 19: 211–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltzman, S. (1984). Constituent interest and congressional voting.Journal of Law and Economics 27: 181–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmusen, E. (1988). Entry for buyout.Journal of Industrial Economics 36: 281–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmusen, E. (1992). An income-satiation model of efficiency wages.Economic Inquiry 30: 467–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmusen, E., Ramseyer, J.M. and Wiley, J. (1991). Naked exclusion.American Economic Review 81: 1137–1145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose-Ackerman, S. (1978).Corruption: A study in political economy, New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, A. (1982). Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model.Econometrica 50: 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasago, K. (1988).Seiji shikin [Political capital]. Tokyo: Seijo shiso sha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaviro, D. (1990). Beyond public choice and public interest: A study of the legislative process as illustrated by tax legislation in the 1980s.University of Pennsylvania Law Review 139: 1–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, J. (1991). On buying legislatures.Economics and Politics 3: 92–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullock, G. (1980a). Efficient rent seeking. In Buchanan, Tollison and Tullock (1980).

  • Tullock, G. (1980b). Rent seeking as a negative-sum game. In Buchanan, Tollison and Tullock (1980).

  • Tullock, G. (1990). The costs of special privilege. In J. Alt and K. Shepsle (Eds.),Perspectives on positive political economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, L. and Kogan, H. (1943).Lords of the levee: The story of Bathhouse John and Hinky Dink. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Olin Foundation and the Center for the Study of the Economy and the State at the University of Chicago, the comments of Jeff Lange, Daniel Lowenstein, George Michaelides, Frances Rosenbluth, participants in the Econometric Society 1990 Winter Meetings and the UCLA Political Economy Lunch Group, and especially the generous encouragement and comments of John Wiley. Much of this work was done while the authors were at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, Harvard Law School, the University of Tokyo School of Law, UCLA's Anderson Graduate School of Management, the UCLA School of Law, and Yale Law School.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rasmusen, E., Ramseyer, J.M. Cheap bribes and the corruption ban: A coordination game among rational legislators. Public Choice 78, 305–327 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01047761

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01047761

Keywords

Navigation