Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-lfk5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T22:32:00.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Long Constitution is a (Positively) Bad Constitution: Evidence from OECD Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2014

George Tsebelis  and
Dominic J. Nardi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article starts with two empirical observations from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries about longer constitutions: (1) they are more rigid (that is, more difficult to amend) and (2) they are in practice more frequently amended. The study presents models of the frequently adopted rules for constitutional revision (for example, qualified majorities in one or two chambers, referendums) and demonstrates that, if longer constitutions are more frequently revised, it is because they must impose actual harm on overwhelming majorities. In trying to explain this finding, the article demonstrates that longer constitutions tend to contain more substantive restrictions. Countries with longer constitutions also tend to have lower levels of GDP per capita and higher corruption. Finally, the negative effect of constitutional length on GDP per capita is shown to persist even if corruption is controlled for.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 457 - 478
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Anatol Rapoport Collegiate Professor and Ph.D. Candidate, respectively, Department of Political Science, University of Michigan (emails: tsebelis@umich.edu, dnardi@umich.edu). We would like to thank Nikos Alivizatos, Shaun Bowler, Jean Clipperton, Elias Dinas, Simon Hix, Hannu Nurmi, Johanes Pollak, Bjorn Eric Rasch, Fritz Scharpf, Tom Schwartz, Jonathan Slapin, Daniel Treisman and Vassilis Tzevelekos for many interesting discussions, as well as three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments. Data replication sets and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000441.

References

Alivizatos, Nicos, and Eleftheriadis, Pavlos. 2002. The Greek Constitutional Amendments of 2001. South European Society and Politics 7 (1):63–71.Google Scholar
Barro, Robert J. 1991. Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (2):407–443.Google Scholar
Barro, Robert J.. 2012. Convergence and Modernization Revisited. NBER Working Paper Series 18295. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, Daniel, and Clay, Karen. 2005. American Civil Law Origins: Implications for State Constitutions. American Law and Economics Review 7 (1):61–84.Google Scholar
Bjørnskov, Christian, and Voigt, Stefan. 2014. Constitutional Garrulity and Social Trust. Public Choice 161:91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Simon, and Lindsay, Tim. 2009. Economic Reform When the Constitution Matters: Indonesia’s Constitutional Court and Article 33 of the Constitution. Sydney Law School: Legal Studies Research Paper 09/29.Google Scholar
Cooter, Robert D., and Ginsburg, Tom. 2003. Leximetrics: Or Why the Same Laws Are Longer in Some Countries than Others. Working Paper No. LE03-012. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Elkins, Zachary, Ginsburg, Tom, and Melton, James. 2009. The Endurance of National Constitutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom. 2010. Constitutional Specificity, Unwritten Understandings and Constitutional Agreement. In Constitutional Topography: Values and Constitutions, edited by Andras Sajo and Renaita Uitz, 69–94. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Hammons, Christopher W. 1999. Was James Madison Wrong? Rethinking the American Preference for Short, Framework-Oriented Constitutions. American Political Science Review 93 (4):837–849.Google Scholar
Henisz, Witold. 2000. The Institutional Environment for Multinational Investment. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 16 (2):334–364.Google Scholar
Huber, John D., and Shipan, Charles R.. 2002. Deliberate Discretion?: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel, Kraay, Aart, and Mastruzzi, Massimo. 2010. The Worldwide Governance Indicators Project: Methodology and Analytical Issues, Research Working Paper 5430. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
LaPorta, Rafael, Florencio, L´opez de Silanes, and Andrei, Shleifer. 2008. The Economic Consequences of Legal Origins. Journal of Economic Literature 46 (2):285–332.Google Scholar
Law, David S., and Versteeg, Mila. 2011. Evolution and Ideology of Global Constitutionalism. California Law Review 99 (1163):1219–1220.Google Scholar
Lutz, Donald S. 2006. Principles of Constitutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, Monty, Gurr, Ted, and Jaggers, Keith. 2014. Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2013. College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management.Google Scholar
Montenegro, Alvaro A. 1995. Constitutional Design and Economic Performance. Constitutional Political Economy 6:161–169.Google Scholar
Negretto, Gabriel L. 2012. Replacing and Amending Constitutions: The Logic of Constitutional Change in Latin America. Law and Society Review 46 (4):749–779.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 2008. Driving Democracy: Do Power-Sharing Institutions Work? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, Douglas C., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1989. Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England. The Journal of Economic History 49 (4):803–832.Google Scholar
Storing, Herbert J. 1981. What the Anti-Federalists Were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Transparency International. 2000–2006. Corruption Perceptions Index. Berlin, Germany: Transparency International, Available from http://cpi.transparency.org.Google Scholar
Treisman, Daniel. 2007. What Have We Learned About the Causes of Corruption from Ten Years of Cross-National Empirical Research? Annual Review of Political Science 10:211–244.Google Scholar
Voigt, Stefan. 2009. Explaining Constitutional Garrulity. International Review of Law and Economics 29:290–303.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2014. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank, Available from http: //data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators, accessed 21 August 2014.Google Scholar
Yataganas, Xenophon, and George Tsebelis. 2005. The Treaty of Nice, the Convention Proposal, and the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe: A Veto Players Analysis. European Constitutional Law Review 1 (3):429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Tsebelis and Nardi Supplementary Material

Appendices

Download Tsebelis and Nardi Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 2.6 MB
Supplementary material: File

Tsebelis and Nardi Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Tsebelis and Nardi Supplementary Material(File)
File 38.8 KB