IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aejmic/v9y2017i2p95-138.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accountability and Information in Elections

Author

Listed:
  • Scott Ashworth
  • Ethan Bueno de Mesquita
  • Amanda Friedenberg

Abstract

Elections are thought to improve voter welfare through two channels: effective accountability (i.e., providing incentives for politicians to take costly effort) and electoral selection (i.e., retaining politicians with characteristics voters value). We show that there may be a trade-off between these two channels. Higher levels of effective accountability may hinder the voters' ability to learn about the politicians. In turn, this may hinder electoral selection and be detrimental to voter welfare. This is because increasing effective accountability directly impacts how informative governance outcomes are about an incumbent's type. We show that, if politicians' effort and type are local substitutes (resp. complements) in the production of governance outcomes, an increase in effective accountability corresponds to a decrease (resp. increase) in Blackwell (1951) informativeness. We also show that effective accountability can vary even absent institutional variation. In particular, we provide necessary and sufficient conditions for there to be multiple equilibria that differ in terms of both effective accountability and electoral selection. Overall, our findings have implications for voter behavior, the efficacy of institutional reforms, and voter welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott Ashworth & Ethan Bueno de Mesquita & Amanda Friedenberg, 2017. "Accountability and Information in Elections," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 95-138, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:aea:aejmic:v:9:y:2017:i:2:p:95-138
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/mic.20150349
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mic.20150349
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles/attachments?retrieve=2woYZvMNM7cstjl5PtHV7Drn03M2hvtO
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ash, Elliott & MacLeod, W. Bentley, 2021. "Reducing partisanship in judicial elections can improve judge quality: Evidence from U.S. state supreme courts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    2. Jan Klingelhöfer, 2021. "Competitive elections, incumbency advantage, and accountability," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(4), pages 1397-1428, June.
    3. Li, Anqi & Hu, Lin, 2023. "Electoral accountability and selection with personalized information aggregation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 296-315.
    4. Christian Bruns & Mariana Lopes da Fonseca, 2023. "On Defaults, Framing, and Local Tax Policy: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Portugal," CESifo Working Paper Series 10582, CESifo.
    5. Lang, Matthias & Schudy, Simeon, 2023. "(Dis)honesty and the value of transparency for campaign promises," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    6. Joshua A Strayhorn, 2019. "Plausible deniability," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(4), pages 600-625, October.
    7. Anderson, Siwan & Francois, Patrick, 2023. "Reservations and the politics of fear," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    8. Lindsey Gailmard, 2022. "Electoral accountability and political competence," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(2), pages 236-261, April.
    9. Cesar Martinelli, 2022. "Accountability and Grand Corruption," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 645-679, November.
    10. Bruno Carvalho & Claudia Custodio & Benny Geys & Diogo Mendes & Susana Peralta, 2020. "Information, Perceptions, and Electoral Behaviour of Young Voters: A Randomised Controlled Experiment," Working Papers ECARES 2020-14, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    11. Haritz Garro, 2019. "Terrorism prevention with reelection concerns and valence competition," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(3), pages 330-369, July.
    12. Liqun Liu, 2023. "Reasonable doubt," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(3), pages 485-514, October.
    13. David Bartolini & Agnese Sacchi & Domenico Scalera & Alberto Zazzaro, 2018. "The closer the better? Institutional distance and information blurring in a political agency model," Mo.Fi.R. Working Papers 146, Money and Finance Research group (Mo.Fi.R.) - Univ. Politecnica Marche - Dept. Economic and Social Sciences.
    14. Jan Klingelhöfer, 2019. "Competitive Elections, Incumbency Advantage,and Accountability," CFDS Discussion Paper Series 2019/8, Center for Financial Development and Stability at Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan, China.
    15. Izzo, Federica & Dewan, Torun & Wolton, Stephane, 2022. "Cumulative knowledge in the social sciences: The case of improving voters' information," MPRA Paper 112559, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Qian, Nancy & Nunn, Nathan & Wen, Jaya, 2018. "Distrust and Political Turnover," CEPR Discussion Papers 12555, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Hao Hong & Tsz-Ning Wong, 2020. "Authoritarian election as an incentive scheme," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(3), pages 460-493, July.
    18. Eva Sørensen & Jacob Torfing, 2021. "Accountable Government through Collaborative Governance?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-20, November.
    19. Nathan Nunn & Nancy Qian & Jaya Wen, 2018. "Distrust and Political Turnover during Economic Crises," NBER Working Papers 24187, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:aea:aejmic:v:9:y:2017:i:2:p:95-138. 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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.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.