IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecpoli/v21y2006i48p690-739..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can budget institutions counteract political indiscipline?
[‘Constitutions, politics, and economics’]

Author

Listed:
  • Stefania Fabrizio
  • Ashoka Mody

Abstract

The budget is an expression of political rather than economic priorities. We confirm this proposition for a group of new and potential members of the European Union, finding that politics dominates. The contemporary practice of democracy can increase budget deficits through not only ideological preferences, but also more fragmented government coalitions and higher voter participation. Long-term structural forces, triggered by societal divisions and representative electoral rules, have more ambiguous implications but also appear to increase budget pressures, as others have also found. However, our most robust, and hopeful, finding is that budget institutions – mechanisms and rules of the budget process – that create checks and balances have significant value in curbing fiscal pressures even when the politics is representative but undisciplined, and when long-term structural forces are unfavourable.— Stefania Fabrizio and Ashoka Mody

Suggested Citation

  • Stefania Fabrizio & Ashoka Mody, 2006. "Can budget institutions counteract political indiscipline? [‘Constitutions, politics, and economics’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 21(48), pages 690-739.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecpoli:v:21:y:2006:i:48:p:690-739.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1468-0327.2006.00169.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:oup:ecpoli:v:21:y:2006:i:48:p:690-739.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cebruuk.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.