Suchergebnisse

This paper explores the indirect accountability of political appointees. The appointee's quality is uncertain, and voters hold the politician accountable for the appointee's performance. The politician has better information about the appointee than voters do, but electoral concerns induce the politician to make inefficient retention decisions. Specifically, there is over-retention of appointees relative to the social optimum. If the quality of candidates for appointment is low, then improving the pool of candidates can help reduce distortions and, in fact, it is in the interest of the politician to do so. I also show that more public information about the appointee reduces over-retention.

AbstractWe explore the dynamics of affective partisanship and policy divergence in a behavioral voting model. Voters are adaptive and influenced by partisan affect, while political parties are rational and office motivated. We show that the affective partisanship of the electorate and the divergence of party platforms can be mutually reinforcing, thus providing an explanation for the observed co-movement of affective and elite polarization in recent decades. Whether the induced behavioral path exhibits low polarization or high polarization depends on the salience of group identity and the number of moderate voters. Thus, shocks to those factors, perhaps due to such events as economic crises or war, can lead to the polarization or depolarization of the electorate and of the elite.

AbstractA common feature of democratic politics is that the opposition may sabotage the implementation of policies put forth by the incumbent party. This paper presents a theoretical analysis of the opposition's optimal use of sabotage and of how the prospect of sabotage conditions the incumbent's agenda. We show that, when a proposed policy enjoys moderate public support, the incumbent will attempt to pass it as early as possible, and the opposition will exert increasing effort to sabotage it as the next election approaches. In contrast, the incumbent delays the passage of highly popular policies until near the end of her term, and these are not subject to sabotage. Finally, the threat of sabotage persuades the incumbent to abandon unpopular proposals. In extensions, we show how our results compare under different electoral institutions, and how legislative obstruction can be used as an alternative or complement to sabotage.

We examine the interaction between partisan affect and elite
polarization in a behavioral voting model. Voting is determined by
affect rather than rational choice. Parties are office-motivated;
they choose policies to win elections. We show that parties bias
their policies toward their partisans if voters exhibit ingroup
responsiveness, i.e., they respond more strongly to their own
party's policy deviations than to policy deviations by the other
party. Our results suggest that affective polarization is a driver
of the growing elite polarization in American politics. Importantly,
this observation does not assume any shifts in the voters' bliss
points and is therefore orthogonal to the controversy over whether
the American electorate has become more polarized in ideology.

Formal models of political clientelism tend to focus on vote buying, the exchange of cash and goods for votes on election day. However, other components of the phenomenon, such as patronage, the exchange of public jobs and contracts for political support, are more important in order to understand the pervasive consequences of clientelism. We develop a game-theoretic model of patronage, in which candidates must decide between broker-mediated electoral strategies versus grassroots campaigns. Our model shows that patronage is more likely when public offices are relatively more valuable for brokers, a condition that is typical of institutional configurations that foster corruption. Moreover, setups that constrain candidates from funding grassroots campaigns and weaken ties between politicians and citizens make broker-mediated campaigns more likely. We show that patronage negatively affects citizens' welfare, as winning brokers end up being appointed to public office, undermining the quality of civil servants and public goods provision.