IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v26y1988i3p461-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Constitutent Interest vs. Legislator Ideology: The Role of Political Opportunity Cost

Author

Listed:
  • McArthur, John
  • Marks, Stephen V

Abstract

This paper applies the economic model of legislative voting to the automobile industry domestic content vote in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. The authors consider constituent interests for and against the bill, and compare the predictive powers of alternative indicators of ideological preferences. They also examine the role of political opportunity cost and find that lame ducks were significantly less likely to vote for the bill than were returnees to Congress. Given the political advanta ges of voting for the bill, this is consistent with the view that leg islators were influenced by the case for freer trade. Copyright 1988 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • McArthur, John & Marks, Stephen V, 1988. "Constitutent Interest vs. Legislator Ideology: The Role of Political Opportunity Cost," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(3), pages 461-470, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:26:y:1988:i:3:p:461-70
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Timothy Besley & Anne Case, 2003. "Political Institutions and Policy Choices: Evidence from the United States," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(1), pages 7-73, March.
    2. Binswanger, Johannes & Prüfer, Jens, 2012. "Democracy, populism, and (un)bounded rationality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 358-372.
    3. Potters, Jan & Sloof, Randolph, 1996. "Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 403-442, November.
    4. Lowell Johnson, 1997. "The Lighthouse Reform Movement in Antebellum America," Departmental Working Papers 199703, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
    5. Douglas Nelson, 1996. "The Political Economy of U.S. Automobile Protection," NBER Chapters,in: The Political Economy of American Trade Policy, pages 133-196 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Kevin Henrickson & Wesley Wilson, 2013. "Voting, Regulation, and the Railroad Industry: An Analysis of Private and Public Interest Voting Patterns," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 43(1), pages 21-39, August.
    7. William Kaempfer & Thomas Willett, 1989. "Combining rent-seeking and public choice theory in the analysis of tariffs versus quotas," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 79-86, October.
    8. Besley, Timothy & Larcinese, Valentino, 2005. "Working or shirking?: a closer look at MPs’ expenses and parliamentary attendance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 3609, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Richard T. Cupitt & Euel Elliott, 1994. "Schattschneider Revisited: Senate Voting On The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act Of 1930," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 187-199, November.
    10. Baban Hasnat & Charles Callahan, III, 2004. "The Determinants of US Congressional Voting on the Trade and Development Act of 2000," International Journal of Business and Economics, College of Business and College of Finance, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 3(1), pages 35-44, April.
    11. Dennis, Christopher & Medoff, Marshall H. & Magnera, Michael, 2008. "Constituents' economic interests and senator support for spending limitations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2443-2453, December.
    12. repec:kap:pubcho:v:174:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-017-0493-1 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:ecinqu:v:26:y:1988:i:3:p:461-70. 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: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.