This paper proposes a simple mechanism for evaluating the relevance of credibility problems in politics. If candidates are capable of making credible policy promises, we will not expect them to systematically adopt platforms that entail large probabilities of losing an election. This is because the adoption of very extreme platforms has the effect of shifting expected policies systematically away from their ideal points. For candidates who lack the capacity of making credible commitments, in contrast, policy platforms are simply a reflection of their preferences, which may well be very extreme. I show that this fact implies that when politicians are credible the correlation between candidates preferences and expected policies will always be positive, whereas when they lack credibility the correlation can be negative. Empirical tests on a panel of US abortion preferences and legislation show that the correlation between the preferences of party constituents and enacted policies is consistently negative, a result that strongly suggests the existence of significant credibility problems.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Wesleyan University, Department of Economics in its series Wesleyan Economics Working Papers with number
2006-014.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.: