IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mnt/wpaper/2303.html

Can political gridlock undermine checks and balances? A lab experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Juan Pereyra

  • Alvaro Forteza
  • Irene Mussio

Abstract

If checks and balances are aimed at protecting citizens from the government’s abuse of power, why do they sometimes weaken them? We address this question in a laboratory experiment in which subjects choose between two decision rules: with and without checks and balances. Voters may prefer an unchecked executive if that enables a reform that, otherwise, is blocked by the legislature. Consistent with our predictions, we find that subjects are more likely to weaken checks and balances when there is political gridlock. However, subjects weaken the controls not only when the reform is beneficial but also when it is harmful.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Pereyra & Alvaro Forteza & Irene Mussio, 2023. "Can political gridlock undermine checks and balances? A lab experiment," Documentos de Trabajo/Working Papers 2303, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Economia. Universidad de Montevideo..
    • Handle: RePEc:mnt:wpaper:2303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.um.edu.uy/fcee_papers/2020/Can_political_gridlock_undermine_checks_and_balances_A_lab_experiment.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Torsten Persson & Gérard Roland & Guido Tabellini, 1997. "Separation of Powers and Political Accountability," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(4), pages 1163-1202.
    2. Assar Lindbeck & Jörgen Weibull, 1987. "Balanced-budget redistribution as the outcome of political competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 273-297, January.
    3. John A. List & Azeem M. Shaikh & Yang Xu, 2019. "Multiple hypothesis testing in experimental economics," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 773-793, December.
    4. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    5. Toman Barsbai & Victoria Licuanan & Andreas Steinmayr & Erwin Tiongson & Dean Yang, 2020. "Information and the Acquisition of Social Network Connections," NBER Working Papers 27346, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Pedro Dal Bo & Andrew Foster & Louis Putterman, 2010. "Institutions and Behavior: Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Democracy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2205-2229, December.
    7. Philippe Aghion & Alberto Alesina & Francesco Trebbi, 2004. "Endogenous Political Institutions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(2), pages 565-611.
    8. Alvaro Forteza & Juan S. Pereyra, 2019. "When do Voters Weaken Checks and Balances to Facilitate Economic Reform?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 86(344), pages 775-800, October.
    9. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    10. Fox, Justin & Van Weelden, Richard, 2010. "Partisanship and the effectiveness of oversight," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(9-10), pages 674-687, October.
    11. Timothy Besley & Hannes Mueller, 2018. "Executive Constraints as Robust Control," Working Papers 1054, Barcelona School of Economics.
    12. Dmitry Ryvkin & Anastasia Semykina, 2017. "An experimental study of democracy breakdown, income and inequality," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(2), pages 420-447, June.
    13. Mariano Tommasi & Carlos Scartascini & Ernesto Stein, 2014. "Veto players and policy adaptability: An intertemporal perspective," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 26(2), pages 222-248, April.
    14. Svolik, Milan W., 2020. "When Polarization Trumps Civic Virtue: Partisan Conflict and the Subversion of Democracy by Incumbents," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 15(1), pages 3-31, January.
    15. Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson & Ragnar Torvik, 2013. "Why Do Voters Dismantle Checks and Balances?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(3), pages 845-875.
    16. Daniel McFadden, 1975. "The Revealed Preferences of a Government Bureaucracy: Theory," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(2), pages 401-416, Autumn.
    17. Dimitri Landa & Dominik Duell, 2015. "Social Identity and Electoral Accountability," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 671-689, July.
    18. Eric Maskin & Jean Tirole, 2004. "The Politician and the Judge: Accountability in Government," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 1034-1054, September.
    19. Ragnar Torvik & Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson, 2013. "Why Do Voters Dismantle Checks and Balances? Extensions and Robustness," Working Paper Series 14013, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
    20. repec:bny:wpaper:0010 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Agranov, Marina & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2015. "Equilibrium tax rates and income redistribution: A laboratory study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 45-58.
    22. Hayek, F. A., 2011. "The Constitution of Liberty," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226315379 edited by Hamowy, Ronald, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Forteza, Alvaro & Mussio, Irene & Pereyra, Juan S., 2024. "Can political gridlock undermine checks and balances? A lab experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. Alvaro Forteza & Juan S. Pereyra, 2021. "Separation of powers with ideological parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(3), pages 333-382, July.
    3. Dmitry Ryvkin & Anastasia Semykina, 2017. "An experimental study of democracy breakdown, income and inequality," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(2), pages 420-447, June.
    4. Hans Gersbach & Oriol Tejada & Julia Wagner, 2022. "Policy Reforms and the Amount of Checks & Balances," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 22/373, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    5. María Clara Arroyo, 2018. "The Effect of Executive Constraints on Reform Implementation: An Empirical Analysis," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 0118, Department of Economics - dECON.
    6. Karakas, Leyla D., 2017. "Institutional constraints and the inefficiency in public investments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 93-101.
    7. Vlaicu, Razvan & Whalley, Alexander, 2016. "Hierarchical accountability in government," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 85-99.
    8. Topi Miettinen & Olli Ropponen & Pekka Sääskilahti, 2020. "Prospect Theory, Fairness, and the Escalation of Conflict at a Negotiation Impasse," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 122(4), pages 1535-1574, October.
    9. Gabriele Gratton & Massimo Morelli, 2022. "Optimal Checks And Balances Under Policy Uncertainty," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(2), pages 549-569, May.
    10. Şaşmaz, Aytuğ & Yagci, Alper H. & Ziblatt, Daniel, 2022. "How Voters Respond to Presidential Assaults on Checks and Balances: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Turkey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 55(11), pages 1947-1980.
    11. Karakas, Leyla D., 2016. "Political turnover and the accumulation of democratic capital," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 195-213.
    12. Gratton, Gabriele & Morelli, Massimo, 2020. "Optimal Checks and Balances Under Policy Uncertainty," CEPR Discussion Papers 14745, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Eicher, Theo S. & García-Peñalosa, Cecilia & Kuenzel, David J., 2018. "Constitutional rules as determinants of social infrastructure," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 182-209.
    14. Andrea Sáenz de Viteri Vázquez & Christian Bjørnskov, 2020. "Constitutional power concentration and corruption: evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 509-536, December.
    15. César Martinelli & John Duggan, 2014. "The Political Economy of Dynamic Elections: A Survey and Some New Results," Working Papers 1403, Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM.
    16. Ernesto Dal Bó & Pedro Dal Bó & Erik Eyster, 2018. "The Demand for Bad Policy when Voters Underappreciate Equilibrium Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(2), pages 964-998.
    17. Alvaro Forteza & Irene Mussio & Juan Pereyra, 2019. "Does political gridlock undermine checks and balances? A Lab Experiment," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 0519, Department of Economics - dECON.
    18. Gallier, Carlo, 2020. "Democracy and compliance in public goods games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    19. Lang, Matthias & Schudy, Simeon, 2023. "(Dis)honesty and the value of transparency for campaign promises," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    20. Guerra, Alice & Harrington, Brooke, 2018. "Attitude–behavior consistency in tax compliance: A cross-national comparison," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 184-205.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • E69 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook - - - Other
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    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:mnt:wpaper:2303. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Juan Briozzo (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fceumuy.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.