The Provision of Public Goods Under Alternative Electoral Incentives
Top Cited Papers
- 1 March 2001
- journal article
- Published by American Economic Association in American Economic Review
- Vol. 91 (1) , 225-239
- https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.1.225
Abstract
Politicians who care about the spoils of office may underprovide a public good because its benefits cannot be targeted to voters as easily as pork-barrel spending. We compare a winner-take-all system—where all the spoils go to the winner—to a proportional system—where the spoils of office are split among candidates proportionally to their share of the vote. In a winner-take-all system the public good is provided less often than in a proportional system when the public good is particularly desirable. We then consider the electoral college system and show that it is particularly subject to this inefficiency. (JEL D82, L15)Keywords
All Related Versions
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- An Economic Model of Representative DemocracyThe Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1997
- Are legislators ideologues or the agents of constituents?European Economic Review, 1996
- A Model of Political Competition with Citizen-CandidatesThe Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1996
- On the Form of Transfers to Special InterestsJournal of Political Economy, 1995
- Incentives to Cultivate Favored Minorities Under Alternative Electoral SystemsAmerican Political Science Review, 1993
- Majoritarian Incentives, Pork Barrel Programs, and Procedural ControlAmerican Journal of Political Science, 1991
- Elections, Coalitions, and Legislative OutcomesAmerican Political Science Review, 1988
- Balanced-budget redistribution as the outcome of political competitionPublic Choice, 1987
- The 3/2's Rule in Presidential CampaigningAmerican Political Science Review, 1974
- The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic ResourcesThe Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1943