Examining the Impact of Electoral Competition and Endogenous Lobby Formation on Equilibrium Policy Platforms
-
Deepti Kohli
Abstract
This paper formulates a mathematical model that combines the dynamics of interest group formation with electoral politics, involving office-seeking and corrupt political candidates and voting population with well-defined policy as well as ideological preferences. The analysis provides several interesting insights into the factors affecting lobby membership, free-riding incentives of citizen-voters and aggregate monetary donations garnered by lobby groups. Besides this, the paper also explores the impact of the formation of distinct lobby groups, the presence of swing voters and the corrupt practices or financial embezzlement on the equilibrium policy choice of electoral contenders. The findings reveal that more honest spending of campaign donations by electoral contenders reduces both the size of the lobby (or membership) as well as aggregate campaign contributions in equilibrium. In contrast, a rise in the fixed cost of organization is found to augment lobby membership along with the total amount of campaign contributions. In addition, a reduction in the level of electoral uncertainty as well as a rise in the ideological or swing voter density is found to increase the effectiveness of campaign contributions in raising an electoral candidate’s perceived popularity and, therefore, a smaller lobby group with lower aggregate donations is deemed as sufficient in influencing electoral outcomes. Moreover, the results indicate that a lower utility difference derived by the citizen-voters when comparing the two electoral candidate’s policy choices translates into smaller dispersion of the voters’ ideological bias, and consequently results in an increase in the size of lobby groups and their corresponding aggregate donations. As regards the choice of equilibrium policy, evidence of full policy convergence is not found in the case when citizen-voters of the two groups have separable preferences. In addition, policy equilibrium for a more realistic case in which the two policy platforms exhibit strategic interaction by reacting to each other has also been estimated with the help of simulations. Finally, this paper helps in categorically deciphering the influence of the median voter effect (or the centripetal force) and the distinct centrifugal forces in the form of lobbying effect, swing voter effect and the financial embezzlement effect on the equilibrium policy choice by employing different parametric specifications of the model.
References
Anesi, V. 2009. “Moral Hazard and Free Riding in Collective Action.” Social Choice and Welfare 32: 197–219, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-008-0318-8.Suche in Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, D. 1987. “Interest Groups, Campaign Contributions and Probabilistic Voting.” Public Choice 54: 123–39, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00123002.Suche in Google Scholar
Baron, D. P. 1994. “Electoral Competition with Informed and Uniformed Voters.” American Political Science Review 88: 33–47, https://doi.org/10.2307/2944880.Suche in Google Scholar
Barrett, S. 1994. “Self-enforcing International Environmental Agreements.” Oxford Economic Papers 46: 878–94, https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/46.supplement_1.878.Suche in Google Scholar
Barrett, S. 1997. “Toward a Theory of International Environmental Cooperation.” In New Directions in the Economic Theory of the Environment, edited by C. Carraro and D. Siniscalco. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Besley, T. and S. Coate. 2001. “Lobbying and Welfare in a Representative Democracy.” Review of Economic Studies 68: 67–82, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937x.00160.Suche in Google Scholar
Carraro, C. and D. Siniscalco. 1993. “Strategies for the International Protection of the Environment.” Journal of Public Economics 52: 309–28, https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(93)90037-t.Suche in Google Scholar
D’ Aspremont, C., A. Jacquemin, J. J. Gabszewicz, and J. A. Weymark. 1983. “On the Stability of Collusive Price Leadership.” The Canadian Journal of Economics 16: 17–25.10.2307/134972Suche in Google Scholar
Drazen, A., N. Limao, and T. Stratmann. 2007. “Political Contribution Caps and Lobby Formation: Theory and Evidence.” Journal of Public Economics 91: 723–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2006.10.005.Suche in Google Scholar
Felli, L. and A. Merlo. 2006. “Endogenous Lobbying.” Journal of the European Economic Association 4: 180–215, https://doi.org/10.1162/jeea.2006.4.1.180.Suche in Google Scholar
Finus, M. 2001. Game Theory and International Environmental Cooperation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.10.4337/9781843762898Suche in Google Scholar
Furusawa, T. and H. Konishi. 2011. “Contributing or Free-Riding? Voluntary Participation in a Public Good Economy.” Theoretical Economics 6: 219–56, https://doi.org/10.3982/te567.Suche in Google Scholar
Groseclose, T. and J. M. Snyder. 1996. “Buying Supermajorities.” American Political Science Review 90: 303–15, https://doi.org/10.2307/2082886.Suche in Google Scholar
Grossman, G. M. and E. Helpman. 1996. “Electoral Competition with Policy Compromise.” In Economic Series. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies. Working Paper No. 31.Suche in Google Scholar
Gupta, S. and C. W. Swenson. 2003. “Rent-Seeking by Agents of the Firm.” Journal of Law and Economics 46: 253–68, https://doi.org/10.1086/345579.Suche in Google Scholar
Laussel, D. G. 2006. “Special Interest Politics and Endogenous Lobby Formation.” Topics in Theoretical Economics 6: 1–14, https://doi.org/10.2202/1534-598X.1134.Suche in Google Scholar
Le, T. and E. Yalcin. 2018. “Lobbying, Campaign Contributions, and Electoral Competition.” European Journal of Political Economy 55: 559–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2018.05.003.Suche in Google Scholar
Leaver, C. and M. Makris. 2006. “Passive Industry Interests in a Large Polity.” Journal of Public Economic Theory 8: 571–602, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9779.2006.00279.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Magee, C. 2002. “Endogenous Trade Policy and Lobby Formation: An Application to the Free-Rider Problem.” Journal of International Economics 57: 449–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1996(01)00146-5.Suche in Google Scholar
Magee, S. P., W. A. Brock, and L. Young. 1989. Black Hole Tariffs and Endogenous Policy Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Mehra, M., S. Mukherjee, and M. Dutta. 2012. “Toward a Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Treaty through Self-enforcing Mechanisms.” ICRIER Working Paper No. 258.Suche in Google Scholar
Mitra, D. 1999. “Endogenous Lobby Formation and Endogenous Protection: A Long-Run Model of Trade Policy Determination.” American Economic Review 89: 1116–34, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.5.1116.Suche in Google Scholar
Morton, R. B. and R. Myerson. 1992. “Campaign Spending with Impressionable Voters.” Discussion Paper No. 1023, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.Suche in Google Scholar
Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674041660Suche in Google Scholar
Powell, L. W. 2013. “The Influence of Campaign Contributions on Legislative Policy.” A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 11: 339–55, https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2013-0047.Suche in Google Scholar
Prat, A. 2002. “Campaign Spending with Office Seeking Politicians, Rational Voters, and Multiple Lobbies.” Journal of Economic Theory 103: 162–89, https://doi.org/10.1006/jeth.2001.2793.Suche in Google Scholar
Redoano, M. 2010. “Does Centralization Affect the Number and Size of Lobbies?” Journal of Public Economic Theory 12: 407–35, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9779.2010.01459.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Tripathi, M., S. Anasolabehere, and J. M. Snyder. 2002. “Are PAC Contributions and Lobbying Linked? New Evidence from the 1995 Lobby Disclosure Act.” Business and Politics 4: 131–55, https://doi.org/10.2202/1469-3569.1034.Suche in Google Scholar
Ursprung, H. W. 2002. “Lobbying and Political Polarization.” HWWA Discussion Paper No. 193, Hamburg.Suche in Google Scholar
Van der Made, A. 2009. The Microeconomics of Strategic Activism. Netherlands: University of Groningen.Suche in Google Scholar
Zudenkova, G. (2010), “Sincere Lobby Formation”, MPRA Working Paper No. 28249, Available online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/28249/.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- On the Microfoundation of Linear Oligopoly Demand
- Uncertain Outcomes and Climate Change Policy Using an Expo-Power Utility Function
- Price Versus Quantity Competition in a Vertically Related Market with Retailer’s Effort
- Search Costs and Wage Inequality
- Product Differentiation in a Vertical Structure
- Corporate Profit Tax and Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Under Foreign Acquisition
- Examining the Impact of Electoral Competition and Endogenous Lobby Formation on Equilibrium Policy Platforms
- Entry Deterrence and Free Riding in License Auctions: Incumbent Heterogeneity and Monotonicity
- When is Knowledge Acquisition Socially Beneficial in the Laffont–Tirole Regulatory Framework?
- Notes
- Long-Run Growth, Speed of Convergence and the Specification of Technology
- Working Time under Alternative Pay Contracts in the Ride-Sharing Industry
- Tacit Collusion with Consumer Preference Costs
- Competitively-Issued Convertible Bank Notes in a Theory of Finance: Earl Thompson Meets Fischer Black
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- On the Microfoundation of Linear Oligopoly Demand
- Uncertain Outcomes and Climate Change Policy Using an Expo-Power Utility Function
- Price Versus Quantity Competition in a Vertically Related Market with Retailer’s Effort
- Search Costs and Wage Inequality
- Product Differentiation in a Vertical Structure
- Corporate Profit Tax and Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Under Foreign Acquisition
- Examining the Impact of Electoral Competition and Endogenous Lobby Formation on Equilibrium Policy Platforms
- Entry Deterrence and Free Riding in License Auctions: Incumbent Heterogeneity and Monotonicity
- When is Knowledge Acquisition Socially Beneficial in the Laffont–Tirole Regulatory Framework?
- Notes
- Long-Run Growth, Speed of Convergence and the Specification of Technology
- Working Time under Alternative Pay Contracts in the Ride-Sharing Industry
- Tacit Collusion with Consumer Preference Costs
- Competitively-Issued Convertible Bank Notes in a Theory of Finance: Earl Thompson Meets Fischer Black
