Electoral incentives, institutions and rent-seeking
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate conditions under which voters’ comparison of relative performance between adjacent jurisdictions can help reduce rent-seeking by politicians. Design/methodology/approach – A theoretical model was developed to examine the effectiveness of yardstick competition in restraining political corruption, first under a static setting, and then under a dynamic setting, using optimal control theory and differential games. It is assumed that voters compare the performance of their incumbent government with that of a neighboring jurisdiction. The incumbent can provide a public good and extract rent, which are financed by imposing a distortionary tax on the population. Politicians derive utility from rent as well as from popularity. The stock of reputation builds up or decays over time. Reputation is decreasing in rent appropriation. Findings – Without assigning an ex ante type on the politician, the paper demonstrates the possibility that yardstick competition itself fails to restrict rent seeking. When the model is extended to a dynamic setting, it is shown that under unitary performance evaluation, dynamic incentives restrain the politician only if the shadow value of reputation (that measures current and future marginal benefits of increased reputation) is sufficiently high throughout the term. it is shown that, for such a high shadow value to exist, benefits of both instantaneous and end-of-period reputations have to be high enough. On the other hand, under relative performance evaluation, dynamic incentives impose more restrictions on rent appropriation in comparison to the static case. Originality/value – This paper offers the first formal analysis, using differential games, of the role of the interaction between electoral considerations and neighborhood demonstration effects (with respect to relative rent extraction) in determining a politician's optimal rent-seeking behaviour.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 1 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.emeraldinsight.com|
|Order Information:|| Postal: Emerald Group Publishing, Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, BD16 1WA, UK|
Web: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/igdr.htm Email:
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:igdrpp:v:1:y:2008:i:2:p:133-146. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Virginia Chapman)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.