Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Oldenbourg November 30, 2017

Reluctant to Reform? A Note on Risk-Loving Politicians and Bureaucrats

Tobias Thomas, Moritz Heß and Gert G. Wagner
From the journal Review of Economics

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.

JEL Classification: D71; D78; H11; H70; P16; Z13

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. Search in Google Scholar

Alesina, A. and A. Drazen (1991): Why are Stabilizations Delayed?, American Economic Review 81, 1170–1188. Search in Google Scholar

Bernheim, B. D. (1994): A Theory of Conformity, Journal of Political Economy 102, 841–877.10.1086/261957 Search 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.pdf Search in Google Scholar

Ciccone, A. (2004): Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty: Comment, American Economic Review 94, 785–795.10.1257/0002828041464425 Search 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/qjx016 Search 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. Search 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, 291–300.10.2307/2234514 Search in Google Scholar

Dewatripont, M. and G. Roland (1992b): Economic Reform and Dynamic Political Constraints, Review of Economic Studies 59, 703–730.10.2307/2297994 Search in Google Scholar

Dewatripont, M. and G. Roland (1995): The Design of Reform Packages under Uncertainty, American Economic Review 85, 1207–1223. Search 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. Search 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, 752–769.10.1086/262092 Search 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.x Search 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. Search 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.1701381.28983511 Search in Google Scholar

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/a0016041 Search 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/8.2.143 Search 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/s10273-015-1780-4 Search 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.x Search 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. Search 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. Search 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-2015-1009 Search 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. Search 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. Search 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.x Search 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, 365–384.10.1086/466947 Search 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/BF02393239 Search 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. Search in Google Scholar

Rabin, M. (1998): Psychology and Economics, Journal of Economic Literature 36, 11–46. Search in Google Scholar

Sauerbrey, A. (2017): Will Russia Try to Hack Germany?, New York Times (International Edition), July 22, 2017. Search in Google Scholar

Schäfer, W. (2010): Politische Kartelle, Review of Economics (Jahrbuch Für Wirtschaftswissenschaften) 61, 213–224. Search 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.129.2.367 Search 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. Search 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. Search 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/S0007123400007225 Search in Google Scholar

Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1986): Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions, Journal of Business 59, 251–278.10.1086/296365 Search in Google Scholar

Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1991): Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 1039–1061.10.2307/2937956 Search 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. Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-11-30
Published in Print: 2017-11-27

© 2017 Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH, Published by De Gruyter Oldenbourg, Berlin/Boston