IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ude/wpaper/0319.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Separation of Powers with Ideological Parties

Author

Listed:
  • Álvaro Forteza

    (Departamento de Economía, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de la República)

  • Juan S. Pereyra

    (Departamento de Economía, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de la República)

Abstract

Separation of powers with checks and balances (SP) is usually regarded as a key institution complementing elections in the control of elected officials. However, some analysts and many politicians also warn that excessive checks on the executive in the presence of polarization may lead to political inaction. We present a political agency model with ideological parties where citizens and politicians care about rents (the valence issue) and policy (a positional issue). We show that SP unambiguously raises voters welfare in highly-polarized non-competitive political environments, because it strengthens both discipline and selection without causing political gridlock (voters can grant the executive the legislative majorities needed to enact reforms). SP also raises voters’ welfare if elections are very effective at disciplining first period incumbents. However, SP may reduce it if most rents go undetected and reformis not a first order issue.

Suggested Citation

  • Álvaro Forteza & Juan S. Pereyra, 2019. "Separation of Powers with Ideological Parties," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 0319, Department of Economics - dECON.
  • Handle: RePEc:ude:wpaper:0319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cienciassociales.edu.uy/departamentodeeconomia/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/08/0319.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy Besley & Hannes Mueller, 2018. "Institutions, Volatility, and Investment," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(3), pages 604-649.
    2. Schelker, Mark, 2018. "Lame ducks and divided government: How voters control the unaccountable," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 131-144.
    3. John Duggan & César Martinelli, 2017. "The Political Economy of Dynamic Elections: Accountability, Commitment, and Responsiveness," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(3), pages 916-984, September.
    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. Alvaro Forteza & Juan S. Pereyra, 2021. "Separation of powers with ideological parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(3), pages 333-382, July.
    2. Tarek A Hassan & Stephan Hollander & Laurence van Lent & Ahmed Tahoun, 2019. "Firm-Level Political Risk: Measurement and Effects," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 134(4), pages 2135-2202.
    3. Ahlquist, John S. & Ichino, Nahomi & Wittenberg, Jason & Ziblatt, Daniel, 2018. "How do voters perceive changes to the rules of the game? Evidence from the 2014 Hungarian elections," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 906-919.
    4. Nicolas Ajzenman & Ruben Durante, 2019. "Salience and Accountability: School Infrastructureand Last-Minute Electoral Punishment," School of Government Working Papers 201905, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella.
    5. Francesco Drago & Roberto Galbiati & Francesco Sobbrio, 2020. "The Political Cost of Being Soft on Crime: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(6), pages 3305-3336.
    6. Timothy Besley & Marta Reynal-Querol, 2017. "The logic of hereditary rule: theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 123-144, June.
    7. Benny Geys & Jan Vermeir, 2014. "Party Cues In Elections Under Multilevel Governance: Theory And Evidence From Us States," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 1029-1058, August.
    8. Bernecker, Andreas, 2016. "Divided we reform? Evidence from US welfare policies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 24-38.
    9. Kishishita, Daiki, 2020. "(Not) delegating decisions to experts: The effect of uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    10. John Duggan & César Martinelli, 2020. "Electoral Accountability and Responsive Democracy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(627), pages 675-715.
    11. Guilmi, Corrado Di & Galanis, Giorgos, 2020. "Convergence and divergence in dynamic voting with inequality," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 61, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    12. Joshua R. Hendrickson & Alexander William Salter, 2020. "Options To The Realm: A Cost Neutral Proposal To Improve Political Incentives," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 38(3), pages 515-529, July.
    13. 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.
    14. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kfir Eliaz & Daniel Fershtman & Kareen Rozen, 2019. "On Selecting the Right Agent," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2019_116, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    15. Cesar Martinelli & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2017. "Communication and Information in Games of Collective Decision: A Survey of Experimental Results," Working Papers 1065, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science.
    16. Anqi Li & Lin Hu, 2020. "Electoral Accountability and Selection with Personalized Information Aggregation," Papers 2009.03761, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    17. Hideo Konishi & Chen-Yu Pan, 2020. "Silent promotion of agendas: campaign contributions and ideological polarization," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 182(1), pages 93-117, January.
    18. Brewer, Paul J & Moberly, Raymond, 2021. "A comparison of zero and minimal intelligence agendas in Markov Chain voting models," OSF Preprints ajfdb, Center for Open Science.
    19. Bils, Peter & Duggan, John & Judd, Gleason, 2021. "Lobbying and policy extremism in repeated elections," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    20. Rohan DUTTA & Pierre-Yves YANNI, 2017. "On Inducing Agents with Term Limits to Take Appropriate Risk," Cahiers de recherche 06-2017, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Political agency; separation of powers; checks and balances;
    All these 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 - Economic Systems - - Capitalist Systems - - - Political Economy of Capitalism

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ude:wpaper:0319. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/derauuy.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.

    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: Romina Quagliotti (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/derauuy.html .

    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.