IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ciwdps/42017.html

Political participation and party capture in a dualized economy: A game theory approach

Author

Listed:
  • Kellermann, Kim Leonie

Abstract

This paper examines the link of political participation and employment status in a dualized labor market. Both insiders and outsiders can actively take part in political decision-making, e.g. by voting for a certain party. Insiders only have the resources to also provide financial donations to policy-makers. Future policy outcomes are determined in a dynamic two-stage game. First, individuals choose their optimal quantity of support depending on policy strategies. Second, parties determine their optimal policy platform anticipating the individual behavior. In order to collect donations, parties are incentivized to occupy an insider-friendly position. Thereby, insiders are encouraged to participate in politics while outsiders are discouraged. Labor market dualization opens up a gap in political involvement which induces a reinforcement of economic segmentation. However, party capture by insiders is weaker, the more strongly a party is originally tied to outsiders. With two parties competing for support and donations, political inequality becomes firmly established since both parties fully adopt the insiders' preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Kellermann, Kim Leonie, 2017. "Political participation and party capture in a dualized economy: A game theory approach," CIW Discussion Papers 4/2017, University of Münster, Center for Interdisciplinary Economics (CIW).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ciwdps:42017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/168472/1/897210611.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    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. Rueda, David, 2005. "Insider–Outsider Politics in Industrialized Democracies: The Challenge to Social Democratic Parties," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(1), pages 61-74, February.
    4. David P. Myatt, 2017. "A Theory of Protest Voting," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(603), pages 1527-1567.
    5. Radcliff, Benjamin, 1992. "The Welfare State, Turnout, and the Economy: A Comparative Analysis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(2), pages 444-454, June.
    6. Goodin, Robert & Dryzek, John, 1980. "Rational Participation: The Politics of Relative Power," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 273-292, July.
    7. Meltzer, Allan H & Richard, Scott F, 1981. "A Rational Theory of the Size of Government," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 914-927, October.
    8. Ashenfelter, Orley C & Kelley, Stanley, Jr, 1975. "Determinants of Participation in Presidential Elections," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 695-733, December.
    9. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    10. David P. Myatt, 2017. "A Theory of Protest Voting," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(603), pages 1527-1567, August.
    11. Brady, Henry E. & Verba, Sidney & Schlozman, Kay Lehman, 1995. "Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(2), pages 271-294, June.
    12. Daniel Kselman & Emerson Niou, 2011. "Protest voting in plurality elections: a theory of voter signaling," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 395-418, September.
    13. repec:cup:apsrev:v:62:y:1968:i:01:p:25-42_11 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Rueda, David, 2006. "Social Democracy and Active Labour-Market Policies: Insiders, Outsiders and the Politics of Employment Promotion," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 385-406, July.
    15. repec:cup:apsrev:v:62:y:1968:i:1:p:25-42_1 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. James K. Galbraith & J. Travis Hale, 2008. "State Income Inequality and Presidential Election Turnout and Outcomes," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(4), pages 887-901, December.
    17. Nathan J. Kelly & Peter K. Enns, 2010. "Inequality and the Dynamics of Public Opinion: The Self‐Reinforcing Link Between Economic Inequality and Mass Preferences," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 855-870, October.
    18. Gary S. Becker, 1983. "A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(3), pages 371-400.
    19. Frederick Solt, 2008. "Economic Inequality and Democratic Political Engagement," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(1), pages 48-60, January.
    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. Kim Leonie Kellermann, 2022. "Political inequality, political participation, and support for populist parties," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 461-482, December.
    2. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    3. Juan Ignacio Martín-Legendre & Paolo Rungo, 2025. "The uneven impact of inequality on voter turnout in urban and rural Spain," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 205(1), pages 129-150, October.
    4. Aidt, Toke S. & Eterovic, Dalibor S., 2011. "Political competition, electoral participation and public finance in 20th century Latin America," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 181-200, March.
    5. Etro, Federico, 2015. "Research in economics and political economy," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 261-264.
    6. Oliver Feltham & Arthur Schram & Randolph Sloof, 2025. "The Role of Opinion Polls in Coordination Amongst Protest Voters: An Experimental Study," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 25-013/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Song, B.K. & Kang, Woo Chang, 2025. "Inequality, local wealth, and electoral politics," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    8. Fabio Padovano, 2013. "Are we witnessing a paradigm shift in the analysis of political competition?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 631-651, September.
    9. Eva Johansson, 2003. "Tactical Redistribution Between Regions When Parties and Voters Care About Ideology," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 5(1), pages 95-120, January.
    10. Lorenzo Cicatiello & Salvatore Ercolano & Giuseppe Gaeta, 2015. "Income distribution and political participation: a multilevel analysis," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 42(2), pages 447-479, May.
    11. Bharatee Bhusana DASH & Stephen FERRIS & Marcel-Cristian VOIA, 2022. "Inequality, Transaction Costs and Voter Turnout: evidence from Canadian Provinces and Indian States," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2953, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    12. Falkowski, Jan & Olper, Alessandro, "undated". "Political Competition and Support for Agriculture," 2010 IAMO Forum, June 16-18, 2010, Halle (Saale), Germany 90799, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    13. Benoît Le Maux, 2009. "Governmental behavior in representative democracy: a synthesis of the theoretical literature," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 141(3), pages 447-465, December.
    14. Clas Eriksson, 2011. "Home bias in preferences and the political economics of agricultural protection," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 92(1), pages 5-23.
    15. Dennis Mueller & Peter Murrell, 1986. "Interest groups and the size of government," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 125-145, January.
    16. Dalibor Eterovic & Nicolas Eterovic, 2010. "Political Competition vs. PoliticalParticipation: Effects on Government's Size," Working Papers wp_006, Adolfo Ibáñez University, School of Government.
    17. Salvatore Nunnari & Jan Zapal, 2017. "A Model of Focusing in Political Choice," Working Papers 599, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    18. Robert-Nicoud, Frederic & Sbergami, Federica, 2004. "Home-market vs. vote-market effect: Location equilibrium in a probabilistic voting model," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 155-179, February.
    19. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Introduction to the Political Economy of Environmental Regulations," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-12, Resources for the Future.
    20. Jan Fałkowski & Alessandro Olper, 2014. "Political competition and policy choices: the evidence from agricultural protection," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 143-158, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • J42 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Monopsony; Segmented Labor Markets
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    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:zbw:ciwdps:42017. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ilmuede.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.