Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:14:06.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Perverse Consequences of Policy Restrictions in the Presence of Asymmetric Information*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Rafael Hortala-Vallve  and
Valentino Larcinese
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Institutions have the power to limit a government’s policy options. Policy restrictions are often used as solutions to coordination failures or time inconsistency problems. However, policy constraints can have significant drawbacks and these disadvantages have, to date, been overlooked in the literature. When institutional constraints tie a government’s hands, citizens will have less incentive to become informed about politics and participate in collective decision-making. This is because policy restrictions lower the private returns of political information. A fiscal policy restriction, for example, may decrease redistribution by lowering a poorer voters’ acquisition of political information. We illustrate our theoretical findings with numerical simulations and find that in one in three cases these policy restrictions make poorer voters worse off.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 411 - 425
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Rafael Hortala-Vallve, Associate professor, Department of Government, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK. (r.hortala-vallve@lse.ac.uk). Valentino Larcinese, Professor, Department of Government, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK. (v.larcinese@lse.ac.uk). To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.30.

References

Alesina, Alberto, and Tabellini, Guido. 1990. ‘A Positive Theory of Fiscal Deficits and Government Debt’. The Review of Economic Studies 57(3):403–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth. 1986. ‘The Demand for Information and the Distribution of Income’. Technical Report No. 494, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Clegg, Liam. 2014. ‘Social Spending Targets in IMF Concessional Lending: US Domestic Politics and the Institutional Foundations of Rapid Operational Change’. Review of International Political Economy 21(3):735–763.Google Scholar
Clementi, Fabio, and Gallegati, Mauro. 2005. ‘Pareto’s Law of Income Distribution: Evidence for Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States’. In Arnab Chatterjee, Sudhakar Yarlagadda and Bikas K Chakrabarti (eds), Econophysics of Wealth Distributions, 3–14. Milan: Springer-Verlag Italia.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1999. ‘Can International Organizations be Democratic? A Skeptic’s View’. In Ian Shapiro and Casiano Hacker-Cordon (eds), Democracy’s Edges, 19–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Follesdal, Andreas, and Hix, Simon. 2006. ‘Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU’. Journal of Common Market Studies 44(3):533–562.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1968. Dollars and Deficits. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hicks, Alexander, and Swank, Duane. 1992. ‘Politics, Institutions, and Welfare Spending in Industrialized Democracies, 1960–1982’. American Political Science Review 86(3):658–674.Google Scholar
Hill, Kim, and Leighley, Jan. 1992. ‘The Policy Consequences of Class Bias in State Electorates’. American Journal of Political Science 36(2):351–365.Google Scholar
Hill, Kim, Leighley, Jan, and Hinton-Andersson, Angela. 1995. ‘Lower Class Mobilization and Policy Linkage in the US States’. American Journal of Political Science 39(1):75–86.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon. 2008. What’s Wrong With the EU and How to Fix It. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hortala-Vallve, Rafael, and Esteve-Volart, Berta. 2011. ‘Voter Turnout in a Multidimensional Policy Space’. Economics of Governance 12(1):25–49.Google Scholar
Husted, Thomas, and Kenny, Lawrence. 1997. ‘The Effect of the Expansion of the Voting Franchise on the Size of Government’. Journal of Political Economy 105(1):54–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kydland, Finn, and Prescott, Edward. 1977. ‘Rules Rather Than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans’. Journal of Political Economy 85(3):473–492.Google Scholar
Larcinese, Valentino. 2005. ‘Electoral Competition and Redistribution with Rationally Informed Voters’. Contributions to Economic Analysis and Policy 4(1):4.Google Scholar
Larcinese, Valentino. 2007a. ‘Voting Over Redistribution and the Size of the Welfare State’. Political Studies 55:568–585.Google Scholar
Larcinese, Valentino. 2007b. ‘Does Political Knowledge Increase Turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British General Election’. Public Choice 131(3):387–411.Google Scholar
Lassen, David. 2005. ‘The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment’. American Journal of Political Science 49(1):103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledyard, Jonh. 1984. ‘The Pure Theory of Large Two-Candidate Elections’. Public Choice 44(1):7–41.Google Scholar
Levitt, Steven, and Snyder, James. 1995. ‘Political Parties and the Distribution of Federal Outlays’. American Journal of Political Science 39(4):958–980.Google Scholar
Lindert, Peter. 1996. ‘What Limits Social Spending?’. Explorations in Economic History 33:1–34.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard, and Ordeshook, Peter. 1984. ‘Rational Expectations in Elections: Some Experimental Results Based on a Multidimensional Model’. Public Choice 44(1):61–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzer, Allan, and Richards, Scott. 1981. ‘A Rational Theory of the Size of Government’. Journal of Political Economy 89(5):914–927.Google Scholar
Moene, Karl Ove, and Wallerstein, Michael. 2001. ‘Inequality, Social Insurance, and Redistribution’. American Political Science Review 95(4):859–874.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 2004. ‘Is There a “Democratic Deficit” in World Politics? A Framework for Analysis’. Government and Opposition 39(2):336–363.Google Scholar
Nordhaus, William. 1975. ‘The Political Business Cycle’. Review of Economic Studies 42(2):169–190.Google Scholar
Persson, Torsten, and Svensson, Lars. 1989. ‘Why a Stubborn Conservative Would Run a Deficit: Policy With Time-Consistent Preferences’. Quarterly Journal of Economics 104(2):325–345.Google Scholar
Prato, Carlo, and Wolton, Stephane. 2014. ‘Electoral Unbalance and Democratic Responsiveness’. Mimeo, London School of Economics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prato, Carlo, and Wolton, Stephane. 2016. ‘The Voters’ Curses: Why We Need Goldilocks Voters’. American Journal of Political Science (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Roberts, Kevin. 1977. ‘Voting Over Income Tax Schedules’. Journal of Public Economics 8:329–340.Google Scholar
Romer, Thomas. 1975. ‘Individual Welfare, Majority Voting, and the Properties of a Linear Income Tax’. Journal of Public Economics 4(2):163–185.Google Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven, and Hansen, John. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Stromberg, David. 2004. ‘Mass Media Competition, Political Competition and Public Policy’. Review of Economic Studies 71(1):265–284.Google Scholar
Verrecchia, Robert. 1982. ‘Information Acquisition in a Noisy Rational Expectations Economy’. Econometrica 50(6):1415–1430.Google Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond. 1980. Who Votes?. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wyplosz, Charles. 2005. ‘Fiscal Policy: Institutions Versus Rules’. National Institute Economic Review 191(1):64–78.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Hortala-Vallve and Larcinese supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Hortala-Vallve and Larcinese supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 211.8 KB