Reluctant to Reform? A Note on Risk-Loving Politicians and Bureaucrats
-
Tobias Thomas
,
Moritz Heß
Abstract
From a political economy perspective, politicians often fail to implement structural reforms. In this contribution we investigate if the resistance to reform is based on the differences in the risk preferences of voters, politicians, and bureaucrats. Based on three surveys among the German electorate, 175 members of the Federal German Parliament and 106 officials from German ministries, this is not the case. Since both politicians and bureaucrats have a higher risk appetite than the voters, their risk preferences cannot be seen as an explanation for the resistance to structural reform. Hence, it must be caused by other reasons. These could be interventions by veto players, wars of attrition by powerful interest groups, or reform logjams initiated. However, as during times of populist campaigns, the election process can put forth candidates with very high risk appetites, the constitutions of democracies turn out to be rather effective if hazardous actions and measures by political rookies and gamblers are inhibited by checks and balances.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees, the editor of the journal as well as to Adam Mark Lederer (Berlin) and Wolfgang Schwarzbauer (Wien) for useful hints and comments.
References
Alesina, A., S. Ardagna and F. Trebbi (2006): Who Adjusts and When? the Political Economy of Reforms, IMF Staff Papers 53, Special Issue, 1–29.10.3386/w12049Suche in Google Scholar
Alesina, A. and A. Drazen (1991): Why are Stabilizations Delayed?, American Economic Review 81, 1170–1188.10.3386/w3053Suche in Google Scholar
Bernheim, B. D. (1994): A Theory of Conformity, Journal of Political Economy 102, 841–877.10.1086/261957Suche in Google Scholar
Blair, T. and G. Schröder (1998): The Third Way, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, download (14.07.2017): http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/suedafrika/02828.pdfSuche in Google Scholar
Ciccone, A. (2004): Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty: Comment, American Economic Review 94, 785–795.10.1257/0002828041464425Suche in Google Scholar
Dal Bo, E., F. Finan, O. Folke, T. Persson and J. Rickne (2017): Who Becomes a Politician?, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 132, 1877–1914.10.1093/qje/qjx016Suche in Google Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag (2017): Kleine Anfrage Der Abgeordneten Jutta Krellmann, Klaus Ernst, Susanna Karawanskij, Weiterer Abgeordneter Und Der Fraktion DIE LINKE, Bundestagsdrucksache 18/11087.Suche in Google Scholar
Dewatripont, M. and G. Roland (1992a): The Virtues of Gradualism and Legitimacy in the Transition to Market Economy, The Economic Journal 102, 291–300.10.2307/2234514Suche in Google Scholar
Dewatripont, M. and G. Roland (1992b): Economic Reform and Dynamic Political Constraints, Review of Economic Studies 59, 703–730.10.2307/2297994Suche in Google Scholar
Dewatripont, M. and G. Roland (1995): The Design of Reform Packages under Uncertainty, American Economic Review 85, 1207–1223.Suche in Google Scholar
Dixit, A. (2006): Predatory States and Failing States: An Agency Perspective, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies Working Paper, No 71.Suche in Google Scholar
Dixit, A., G. M. Grossman and E. Helpman (1997): Common Agency and Coordination: General Theory and Application to Government Policy Making, The Journal of Political Economy 105, 752–769.10.1086/262092Suche in Google Scholar
Dohmen, T., A. Falk, D. Huffman, U. Sunde, J. Schupp and G. G. Wagner (2011): Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants and Behavioral Consequences, Journal of the European Economic Association 9, 522–550.10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.xSuche in Google Scholar
Fernandez, R. and D. Rodrik (1991): Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty, American Economic Review 81, 1146–1155.Suche in Google Scholar
Frey, R., A. Pedroni, R. Mata, J. Rieskamp and R. Hertwig (2017): Risk Preference Shares the Psychometric Structure of Major Psychological Traits, Science Advances 3, e1701381, 10.1126/sciadv.1701381.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
Göbel, M., A. Schneider and T. Thomas (2010): Consumption Behavior and the Aspiration for Conformity and Consistency, Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics 3, 83–94.10.1037/a0016041Suche in Google Scholar
Haggard, S. and S. B. Webb (1993): What Do We Know about the Political Economy of Economic Policy Reform?, The World Bank Research Observer 8, 143–168.10.1093/wbro/8.2.143Suche in Google Scholar
Haucap, J., T. Thomas and G. G. Wagner (2015): Welchen Einfluss Haben Wissenschaftler in Medien Und Auf Die Wirtschaftspolitik?, Wirtschaftsdienst 95, 68–75.10.1007/s10273-015-1780-4Suche in Google Scholar
Heinemann, F., M. Förg, E. Jonas and E. Traut-Mattausch (2008): Psychologische Restriktionen Wirtschaftspolitischer Reformen, Perspektiven Der Wirtschaftspolitik 9, 383–404.10.1111/j.1468-2516.2008.00285.xSuche in Google Scholar
Hess, M., C. Von Scheve, J. Schupp and G. G. Wagner (2013b): Members of German Federal Parliament More Risk-Loving than General Population, In, DIW Economic Bulletin 3, 20–24.10.2139/ssrn.2253836Suche in Google Scholar
Hess, M., C. Von Scheve, J. Schupp and G. G. Wagner (2013a): Sind Politiker Risikofreudiger Als Das Volk? Eine Empirische Studie Zu Mitgliedern Des Deutschen Bundestags. SOEP Paper 545.10.2139/ssrn.2231389Suche in Google Scholar
Hielscher, K. (2016): Growth in European Crisis Countries: Cyclical Normality Ot the Result of Structural Reforms?, Review of Economics 67, 1–23.10.1515/roe-2015-1009Suche in Google Scholar
ISG (Institut für Sozialforschung und Gesellschaftspolitik GmbH) (2011), „Studie Zur Wahrnehmung Und Berücksichtigung Von Wachstums Und Wohlstandsindikatoren“ Im Auftrag Der Enquete-Kommission „Wachstum, Wohlstand, Lebensqualität“ Des Deutschen Bundestages (Kommissionsmaterialien M-17(26)11), Berlin.Suche in Google Scholar
Kalt, J. P. and M. A. Zupan (1984): Capture and Ideology in the Economic Theory of Politics, American Economic Review 74, 279–300.Suche in Google Scholar
Kam, C. D. (2012): Risk Attitudes and Political Participation, American Journal of Political Science 56, 817–836.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00605.xSuche in Google Scholar
Kan, J. B. and P. H. Rubin (1979): Self-Interest, Ideology, and Logrolling in Congressional Voting, Journal of Law and Economics 22, 365–384.10.1086/466947Suche in Google Scholar
Merville, L. J. and D. K. Osborne (1990): Constitutional Democracy and the Theory of Agency, Constitutional Political Economy 1, 21–47.10.1007/BF02393239Suche in Google Scholar
Peltzman, S. (1985): An Economic Interpretation of the History of Congressional Voting in the Twentieth Century, American Economic Review 75, 656–675.Suche in Google Scholar
Rabin, M. (1998): Psychology and Economics, Journal of Economic Literature 36, 11–46.Suche in Google Scholar
Sauerbrey, A. (2017): Will Russia Try to Hack Germany?, New York Times (International Edition), July 22, 2017.Suche in Google Scholar
Schäfer, W. (2010): Politische Kartelle, Review of Economics (Jahrbuch Für Wirtschaftswissenschaften) 61, 213–224.10.5771/9783845231754-795Suche in Google Scholar
Siedler, T., J. Schupp, C. K. Spieß and G. G. Wagner (2009): The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) as Reference Data Set, Schmollers Jahrbuch 129, 367–374.10.3790/schm.129.2.367Suche in Google Scholar
Stadelmann, D. and M. Portmann (2017): Testing the Median Voter Model and Moving beyond Its Limits: Do Personal Characteristics Explain Legislative Shirking?, Social Science Quarterly, published online first: 15 February 2017.Suche in Google Scholar
Stadelmann, D., M. Portmann and R. Eichenberger (2016): Preference Representation and the Influence of Political Parties in Majoritarian Vs. Proportional Systems: An Empirical Test, British Journal of Political Science, published online first: 5 December 2016.Suche in Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (1995): Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism, British Journal of Political Science 25, 289–325.10.1017/S0007123400007225Suche in Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1986): Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions, Journal of Business 59, 251–278.10.1086/296365Suche in Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1991): Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 1039–1061.10.2307/2937956Suche in Google Scholar
Wagner, G. G., J. R. Frick and J. Schupp (2007): The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) – Scope, Evolution and Enhancements, Schmollers Jahrbuch 127, 139–170.10.2139/ssrn.1028709Suche in Google Scholar
© 2017 Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH, Published by De Gruyter Oldenbourg, Berlin/Boston
