[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/dicedp/272.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reluctant to reform? A note on risk-loving politicians and bureaucrats

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas, Tobias
  • Heß, Moritz
  • Wagner, Gert G.
Abstract
From a political economy perspective, politicians often fail to implement structural reforms. In this contribution we investigate if the resistance to reform is based on the differences in the risk preferences of voters, politicians, and bureaucrats. Based on three surveys among the German electorate, 175 members of the Federal German Parliament and 106 officials from German ministries, this is not the case. Since both politicians and bureaucrats have a higher risk appetite than the voters, their risk preferences cannot be seen as an explanation for the resistance to structural reform. Hence, it must be caused by other reasons. These could be interventions by veto players, wars of attrition by powerful interest groups, or reform logjams initiated. However, as during times of populist campaigns, the election process can put forth candidates with very high risk appetites, the constitutions of democracies turn out to be rather smart if hazardous actions and measures by political rookies and gamblers are inhibited by checks and balances.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas, Tobias & Heß, Moritz & Wagner, Gert G., 2017. "Reluctant to reform? A note on risk-loving politicians and bureaucrats," DICE Discussion Papers 272, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:dicedp:272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/170686/1/1002348501.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stadelmann, David & Portmann, Marco & Eichenberger, Reiner, 2019. "Preference Representation and the Influence of Political Parties in Majoritarian vs. Proportional Systems: An Empirical Test," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 181-204, January.
    2. Larry Merville & Dale Osborne, 1990. "Constitutional democracy and the theory of agency," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 21-47, September.
    3. M. Dewatripont & G. Roland, 1992. "Economic Reform and Dynamic Political Constraints," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 59(4), pages 703-730.
    4. Dewatripont, Mathias & Roland, Gerard, 1995. "The Design of Reform Packages under Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1207-1223, December.
    5. Marco Portmann & David Stadelmann, 2017. "Testing the Median Voter Model and Moving Beyond its Limits: Do Personal Characteristics Explain Legislative Shirking?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1264-1276, November.
    6. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    7. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    8. Dixit, Avinash & Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1997. "Common Agency and Coordination: General Theory and Application to Government Policy Making," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(4), pages 752-769, August.
    9. Alesina, Alberto & Drazen, Allan, 1991. "Why Are Stabilizations Delayed?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1170-1188, December.
    10. Dewatripont, M & Roland, G, 1992. "The Virtues of Gradualism and Legitimacy in the Transition to a Market Economy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(411), pages 291-300, March.
    11. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    12. Bernheim, B Douglas, 1994. "A Theory of Conformity," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(5), pages 841-877, October.
    13. Matthew Rabin, 1998. "Psychology and Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-46, March.
    14. Avinash Dixit, 2006. "Predatory States and Failing States: An Agency Perspective," Working Papers 71, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
    15. Kalt, Joseph P & Zupan, Mark A, 1984. "Capture and Ideology in the Economic Theory of Politics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 279-300, June.
    16. Kau, James B & Rubin, Paul H, 1979. "Self-Interest, Ideology, and Logrolling in Congressional Voting," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 365-384, October.
    17. Peltzman, Sam, 1985. "An Economic Interpretation of the History of Congressional Voting in the Twentieth Century," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(4), pages 656-675, September.
    18. Cindy D. Kam, 2012. "Risk Attitudes and Political Participation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(4), pages 817-836, October.
    19. Alberto Alesina & Silvia Ardagna & Francesco Trebbi, 2006. "Who Adjusts and When?The Political Economy of Reforms," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 53(si), pages 1-1.
    20. Friedrich Heinemann & Michael Förg & Eva Jonas & Eva Traut‐Mattausch, 2008. "Psychologische Restriktionen wirtschaftspolitischer Reformen," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 9(4), pages 383-404, November.
    21. Ernesto Dal Bó & Frederico Finan & Olle Folke & Torsten Persson & Johanna Rickne, 2017. "Who Becomes A Politician?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(4), pages 1877-1914.
    22. Antonio Ciccone, 2004. "Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 785-795, June.
    23. Fernandez, Raquel & Rodrik, Dani, 1991. "Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1146-1155, December.
    24. Haggard, Stephan & Webb, Steven B, 1993. "What Do We Know about the Political Economy of Economic Policy Reform?," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 8(2), pages 143-168, July.
    25. Avinash Dixit, 2006. "Predatory States and Failing States: An Agency Perspective," Working Papers 71, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
    26. Tsebelis, George, 1995. "Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 289-325, July.
    27. Gert G. Wagner & Joachim R. Frick & Jürgen Schupp, 2007. "The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) – Scope, Evolution and Enhancements," Schmollers Jahrbuch : Journal of Applied Social Science Studies / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 127(1), pages 139-169.
    28. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    29. Justus Haucap & Tobias Thomas & Gert Wagner, 2015. "Welchen Einfluss haben Wissenschaftler in Medien und auf die Wirtschaftspolitik?," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 95(1), pages 68-75, January.
    30. Goebel, Markus & Schneider, Andrea & Thomas, Tobias, 2007. "Consumer behavior and the aspiration for conformity and consistency," Working Paper 57/2007, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg.
    31. repec:pri:cepsud:131dixit is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heß, Moritz & Scheve, Christian von & Schupp, Jürgen & Wagner, Aiko & Wagner, Gert G., 2018. "Are political representatives more risk-loving than the electorate? Evidence from German federal and state parliaments," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 4, pages 1-7.
    2. Strohner Ludwig & Berger Johannes & Thomas Tobias, 2019. "Sekt oder Selters? – Ökonomische Folgen der Reformzurückhaltung bei der Beendigung des Solidaritätszuschlags," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 19(4), pages 313-330, February.
    3. Strohner Ludwig & Berger Johannes & Thomas Tobias, 2018. "Sekt oder Selters? – Ökonomische Folgen der Reformzurückhaltung bei der Beendigung des Solidaritätszuschlags," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 19(4), pages 313-330, December.
    4. Gert G. Wagner & Ruben C. Arslan & Florian Dorn & Stefanie Gäbler & Florian Griese & Ralph Hertwig & Björn Kauder & Manuela Krause & Luisa Lorenz & Martin Mosler & Niklas Potrafke & Luisa Dörr, 2018. "Risikoeinschätzungen von Ökonomen," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 71(07), pages 61-64, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Micael Castanheira & Gaëtan Nicodème & Paola Profeta, 2012. "On the political economics of tax reforms: survey and empirical assessment," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 19(4), pages 598-624, August.
    2. Gerard Rpland, 2001. "The Political Economy of Transition," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 413, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    3. Francesco Caselli & Nicola Gennaioli, 2008. "Economics and Politics of Alternative Institutional Reforms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(3), pages 1197-1250.
    4. Che, Jiahua & Facchini, Giovanni, 2004. "Dual Track Liberalization: With and Without Losers," Working Papers 04-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    5. Micael Castanheira & Gaëtan Nicodème & Paola Profeta, 2012. "On the political economics of tax reforms: survey and empirical assessment," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 19(4), pages 598-624, August.
    6. Zanardi, Maurizio & Facchini, Giovanni & Conconi, Paola, 2011. "Policymakers? Horizon and Trade Reforms," CEPR Discussion Papers 8251, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Fidrmuc, Jan & Karaja, Elira, 2013. "Uncertainty, informational spillovers and policy reform: A gravity model approach," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 182-192.
    8. Conconi, Paola & Facchini, Giovanni & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2014. "Policymakers' horizon and trade reforms: The protectionist effect of elections," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 102-118.
    9. Campos, Nauro F. & Horváth, Roman, 2006. "Reform Redux: Measurement, Determinants and Reversals," IZA Discussion Papers 2093, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Bernardes, Luis G., 2003. "Reference-dependent preferences and the speed of economic liberalization," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 521-548, November.
    11. Roberto Brunetti & Matthieu Pourieux, 2023. "Representative Policy-Makers? A Behavioral Experiment with French Politicians," Working Papers 2319, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    12. Friedrich Heinemann & Michael Förg & Eva Jonas & Eva Traut‐Mattausch, 2008. "Psychologische Restriktionen wirtschaftspolitischer Reformen," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 9(4), pages 383-404, November.
    13. Heinemann, Friedrich, 2000. "Die Psychologie irrationaler Wirtschaftspolitik am Beispiel des Reformstaus," ZEW Discussion Papers 00-12, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Nikitas Konstantinidis & Yannis Karagiannis, 2020. "Intrinsic vs. extrinsic incentives for reform: An informational mechanism of E(M)U conditionality," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 601-632, July.
    15. Prato, Carlo & Wolton, Stephane, 2018. "Rational ignorance, populism, and reform," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 119-135.
    16. Heß, Moritz & Scheve, Christian von & Schupp, Jürgen & Wagner, Aiko & Wagner, Gert G., 2018. "Are Political Representatives More Risk-Loving Than the Electorate? Evidence from German Federal and State Parliaments," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 4, pages 1-7.
    17. Markus Leibrecht & Hans Pitlik, 2014. "Generalised Trust, Institutional and Political Constraints on the Executive and Deregulation of Markets," WIFO Working Papers 481, WIFO.
    18. Anand, Kartik & Gai, Prasanna & König, Philipp Johann, 2020. "Leaping into the dark: A theory of policy gambles," Discussion Papers 07/2020, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    19. Andreas Bernecker & Pierre C. Boyer & Christina Gathmann, 2021. "The Role of Electoral Incentives for Policy Innovation: Evidence from the US Welfare Reform," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 26-57, May.
    20. Galiani, Sebastian & Torre, Ivan & Torrens, Gustavo, 2019. "International organizations and the political economy of reforms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    political reforms; political decision-making; principal agent-theory; risk aversion; German; SOEP;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation
    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • H70 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - General
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:dicedp:272. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diduede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.