No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Not always on an equal footing: power, partiality and the conditional effect of multiparty government on public spending
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 August 2019
Abstract
Public spending arguably increases with the number of parties in government as each party seeks to secure benefits to its target groups. In this study, two factors that affect the budgetary consequences of multiparty government are identified. The first is the distribution of a priori voting power. An uneven distribution of voting power implies that all government parties are not expected to be equally successful in budgetary negotiations. The second is the degree of impartiality of the public sector. If the public sector is characterized by corruption and other forms of partiality, distributive issues can be expected to gain importance in representative politics. An analysis of data from 30 European countries suggests that changes in the number of government parties are associated with changes in public spending in cases where equally powerful parties are in government and the public sector is relatively partial.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © European Consortium for Political Research 2019
References
Alesina, A. and Angeletos, G.M. (2005), ‘Corruption, inequality, and fairness’, Journal of Monetary Economics 52(7): 1227–1244.Google Scholar
Armingeon, K., Isler, C., Knöpfel, L., Weisstanner, D. and Engler, S. (2015), Comparative Political Data Set 1960–2013. Berne: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne. Available at http://www.cpds-data.org/ [Accessed 27 August 2015].Google Scholar
Bäck, H., Müller, W.C. and Nyblade, B. (2017), ‘Multiparty government and economic policy-making: coalition agreements, prime ministerial power and spending in Western European cabinets’, Public Choice 170(1): 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, K. and Rosenbluth, F. (2006), ‘Short versus long coalitions: electoral accountability and the size of the public sector’, American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, N. and Katz, J.N. (1995), ‘What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data’, The American Political Science Review 89(3): 634–647.Google Scholar
Blundell, R. and Bond, S. (1998), ‘Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models’, Journal of Econometrics 87(1): 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budina, N., Kinda, T., Schaechter, A. and Weber, A. (2012), ‘Fiscal rules at a glance: country details from a new dataset’. IMF working paper WP/12/273. International Monetary Fund. Available at https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12273.pdf [Accessed 25 August 2016].Google Scholar
Burlacu, D. (2018), ‘Corruption and ideological voting’, British Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1017/S0007123417000758.Google Scholar
Čehovin, M. and Haček, M. (2015), ‘Critical analysis of civil service politicization in Slovenia’, World Political Science Review 11(1): 133–155.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, S. and Solevid, M. (2016), ‘Does corruption suppress voter turnout?’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 26(4): 489–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlström, C. and Lapuente, V. (2017), Organizing Leviathan: Politicians, Bureaucrats, and the Making of Good Government, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Della Porta, D. and Vannucci, A. (1997), ‘The “perverse effects” of political corruption’, Political Studies 45(3): 516–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döring, H. and Manow, P. (2016), Parliaments and governments database (ParlGov): Information on parties, elections and cabinets in modern democracies. Development version. Available at http://www.parlgov.org [Accessed 23 June 2016].Google Scholar
Elgie, R. and McMenamin, I. (2008), ‘Political fragmentation, fiscal deficits and political institutionalisation’, Public Choice 136: 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feenstra, R.C., Inklaar, R. and Timmer, M.P. (2015), ‘The next generation of the Penn World Table’, American Economic Review 105(10): 3150–3182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenthal, D.S. and Machover, M. (1998), The Measurement of Voting Power: Theory and Practice, Problems and Paradoxes, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garmann, S. (2014), ‘The causal effect of coalition governments on fiscal policies: evidence from a Regression Kink Design’, Applied Economics 46(36): 4490–4507.Google Scholar
Goel, R. and Nelson, M.A. (1998), ‘Corruption and government size: a disaggregated analysis’, Public Choice 97(1): 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grönlund, K. and Setälä, M. (2012), ‘In honest officials we trust: Institutional confidence in Europe’, American Review of Public Administration 42(5): 523–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Győrffy, D. (2006). ‘Governance in a low-trust environment: the difficulties of fiscal adjustment in Hungary’, Europe-Asia Studies 58(2): 239–259.Google Scholar
Hallerberg, M., Strauch, R.R. and von Hagen, J. (2009), Fiscal Governance in Europe, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J.C. (1977), Rational Behaviour and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, L.D. (2012), International Country Risk Guide methodology. The PRS Group. Available at https://www.prsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/icrgmethodology.pdf [Accessed 2 October 2017].Google Scholar
Huber, G., Kocher, M. and Sutter, M. (2003), ‘Government strength, power dispersion in governments and budget deficits in OECD-countries: a voting power approach’, Public Choice 116(3–4): 333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Monetary Fund. (2016), Fiscal rules dataset 1985–2014. (Updated April 2015) Available at http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/fiscalrules/map/map.htm [Accessed 25 August 2016].Google Scholar
Jacobs, A.M. and Matthews, J.S. (2017), ‘Policy attitudes in institutional context: rules, uncertainty, and the mass politics of public investment’, American Journal of Political Science 61(1): 194–207.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H. (2000), ‘Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities’, Comparative Political Studies 33(6/7): 845–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, H. and Wilkinson, S.I. (2007), ‘Citizen–politician linkages: an introduction’, in Kitschelt, H. and Wilkinson, S.I. (eds.), Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–49.Google Scholar
Laakso, M. and Taagepera, R. (1979), ‘ “Effective” number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe’, Comparative Political Studies 12(1): 3–27.Google Scholar
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. (1999), ‘The quality of government’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15(1): 222–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laruelle, A. and Valenciano, F. (2007), ‘Bargaining in committees as an extension of Nash’s bargaining theory’, Journal of Economic Theory 132(1): 291–305.Google Scholar
Laruelle, A. and Valenciano, F. (2009), ‘Voting and power’, Homo Oeconomicus 26(3/4): 455–469.Google Scholar
Laver, M. and Benoit, K. (2015), ‘The basic arithmetic of legislative decisions’, American Journal of Political Science 59(2): 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, L.W. and Vanberg, G. (2013), ‘Multiparty government, fiscal institutions, and public spending’, The Journal of Politics 75(4): 953–967.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, B. (2003), ‘Political parties and the size of government in multiparty legislatures: examining cross-country and panel data evidence’, Comparative Political Studies 36(6): 699–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2015), The Quest for Good Governance: How Societies Develop Control of Corruption, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nakrošis, V. (2015), ‘The turnover and politicisation of Lithuanian public sector managers’, World Political Science Review 11(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Nickell, S. (1981), ‘Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects’, Econometrica 49(6): 1417–1426.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (2012), Making Democratic Governance Work: How Regimes Shape Prosperity, Welfare, and Peace, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nurmi, H. (2014), ‘Some remarks on the concept of proportionality’, Annals of Operations Research 215(1): 231–244.Google Scholar
Olson, M. (1982), The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Pajala, A., Meskanen, T. and Kause, T. (2002), Powerslave power index calculator: a voting body analyser in the Voting Power and Power Index Website. (Updated 21 April 2016) Available at http://powerslave.val.utu.fi/ [Accessed 11 December 2016].Google Scholar
Persson, A. and Rothstein, B. (2015), ‘It’s my money: Why big government may be good government’, Comparative Politics 47(2): 231–249.Google Scholar
Persson, A., Rothstein, B. and Teorell, J. (2012), ‘Rethinking the nature of the grabbing hand’, in Holmberg, S. and Rothstein, B. (eds.), Good Government: The Relevance of Political Science, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 251–273.Google Scholar
Persson, T., Roland, G. and Tabellini, G. (2007), ‘Electoral rules and government spending in parliamentary democracies’, Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2(2): 155–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potrafke, N. (2017), ‘Partisan politics: the empirical evidence from OECD panel studies’, Journal of Comparative Economics 45(4): 712–750.Google Scholar
Primo, D.M. and Snyder, J.M. (2008), ‘Distributive politics and the law of 1/n’, The Journal of Politics 70(2): 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, B. (2011), The Quality of Government: Corruption, Social Trust, and Inequality in International Perspective, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rothstein, B., Samanni, M. and Teorell, J. (2012), ‘Explaining the welfare state: power resources vs. the quality of government’, European Political Science Review 4(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Schaechter, A., Kinda, T., Budina, N. and Weber, A. (2012), ‘Fiscal rules in response to the crisis – toward the “next-generation” rules. A new dataset’. IMF working paper WP/12/187. International Monetary Fund. Available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12187.pdf [Accessed 13 September 2017].Google Scholar
Stockemer, D., LaMontagne, B. and Scruggs, L. (2013), ‘Bribes and ballots: The impact of corruption on voter turnout in democracies’, International Political Science Review 34(1): 74–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svallfors, S. (2013), ‘Government quality, egalitarianism, and attitudes to taxes and social spending: a European comparison’, European Political Science Review 5(3): 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teorell, J., Dahlberg, S., Holmberg, S., Rothstein, B., Hartmann, F. and Svensson, R. (2015), The quality of government standard dataset, version Jan15, Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, The Quality of Government Institute. Available at http://www.qog.pol.gu.se [Accessed 30 September 2015].Google Scholar
Volkens, A., Lehmann, P., Matthieß, T., Merz, N., Regel, S. and Weßels, B. (2017), The manifesto data collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2017b. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). Available at https://doi.org/10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2017b [Accessed 20 March 2018].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkerink, B. and De Haan, J. (2001), ‘Fragmented government effects on fiscal policy: new evidence’, Public Choice 109(3–4): 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M. E. (2004), ‘What does corruption mean in a democracy?’, American Journal of Political Science 48(2): 328–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, B.R., Shepsle, K.A. and Johnsen, C. (1981), ‘The political economy of benefits and costs: a neoclassical approach to distributive politics’, Journal of Political Economy 89(4): 642–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank (2016), World development indicators. Available at http://databank.worldbank.org/data/source/world-development-indicators [Accessed 20 June 2016].Google Scholar
Ylisalo supplementary material
Ylisalo supplementary material 1
File
51.3 KB