 Selection vs. accountability: An experimental investigation of campaign promises in a moral-hazard environmentNick Feltovich and Francesco Giovannoni Journal of Public Economics, 2015, vol. 126, issue C, 39-51 Abstract: We examine retrospective- and prospective-voting considerations in an experiment implementing a simple voting model. In each period, the official chooses how much rent to appropriate from a social endowment. Announcement of this choice is followed by an election between the official and a randomly selected challenger, with the winner becoming the official in the next period. We vary two features of the setting: (a) the discount factor, and (b) whether candidates can make costless, non-binding “campaign promises” about their behaviour if elected. Consistent with the model's predictions, both raising the discount factor and introducing campaign promises lead to lower rent appropriation by officials and worse electoral outcomes (other things equal) for incumbents. Campaign promises, despite being cheap talk, have real effects: promising less appropriation is rewarded by voters, but breaking such promises is punished. Finally, we find a weak positive association between campaign promises and officials' subsequent behaviour. Keywords: Retrospective voting; Prospective voting; Political economy; Cheap talk; Corruption (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:pubeco:v:126:y:2015:i:c:p:39-51 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2015.03.008 Access Statistics for this article Journal of Public Economics is currently edited by R. Boadway and J. Poterba More articles in Journal of Public Economics from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.