Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:31:24.301Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fiscal rules and electoral turnout

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2019

Lasse Aaskoven Open the ORCID record for Lasse Aaskoven [Opens in a new window]
Lasse Aaskoven*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author. Email: lasse.aaskoven@essex.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A growing literature has argued that electoral turnout decreases the more government policy constrained by economic and institutional factors. This paper investigates whether a certain type of policy constraint, fiscal rules, lowers turnout. Since fiscal rules set limits for government fiscal policy, they should lower the incentive for citizens to participate electorally. However, using parliamentary turnout data in a large panel of democratic countries, little robust evidence is found in favor of fiscal rules having a depressing effect on electoral turnout. Analysis of European individual-level data also suggests that national fiscal rules do not affect inequality in electoral turnout between income groups either. Difference-in-discontinuity evidence from Italian municipalities further suggests that the results are causally identified.

Keywords

Causal inferencefiscal ruleselectoral turnoutpolicy constraints
Type
Original Article
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 259 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ai, C and Norton, EC (2003) Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters 80, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, JH (1993) Rational choice and turnout. American Journal of Political Science 37, 246–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alt, JE and Lassen, DD (2006) Fiscal transparency, political parties, and debt in OECD countries. European Economic Review 50, 1403–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altunbas, Y and Thornton, J (2017) Why do countries adopt fiscal rules? The Manchester School 85, 65–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, JD and Pischke, J-S (2009) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, T, Clarke, G, Groff, A, Keefer, P and Walsh, P (2001) New tools in comparative political economy: the database of political institutions. World Bank Economic Review 15, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, UM and Hutchison, M (2015) Economic stabilization in the post-crisis world: are fiscal rules the answer? Journal of International Money and Finance 52, 82–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatti, Y, Dahlgaard, JO, Hansen, JH and Hansen, KM (2019) Core and peripheral voters: predictors of turnout across three types of elections. Political Studies 67, 348–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, S (2010) Perceptions of electoral fairness and voter turnout. Comparative Political Studies 43, 1601–1622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A (2006) What affects voter turnout? Annual Review of Political Science 9, 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bova, E, Kinda, T, Muthoora, P and Toscani, F (2015) Fiscal Rules at A Glance. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
Brambor, T, Clark, WR and Golder, M (2006) Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analysis. Political Analysis 14, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calonico, S, Cattaneo, MD and Titiunik, R (2014) Robust non-parametric confidence intervals for regression-discontinuity designs. Econometrica 82, 2295–2336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calonico, S, Cattaneo, MD, Farrell, MH and Titiunik, R (2017) Rdrobust: software for regression discontinuity designs. Stata Journal 17, 372–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chowhury, A and Islam, I (2012) Fiscal rules—help or hindrance? VOX, CEPR's Policy Portal, 4th October 2012.Google Scholar
Cox, GW (2015) Electoral rules, mobilization, and turnout. Annual Review of Political Science 18, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Benedetto, MA and De Paola, M (2017) Candidates’ education and turnout: evidence from Italian municipal elections. German Economic Review 18, 22–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Eggers, AC, Freier, R, Grembi, V and Nannicini, T (2018) Regression discontinuity designs based on population thresholds: pitfalls and solutions. American Journal of Political Science 62, 210–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enos, RD and Fowler, A (2014) Pivotality and turnout: evidence from a field experiment in the aftermath of a tied election. Political Science Research and Methods 2, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Albertos, J (2015) The politics of central bank independence. Annual Review of Political Science 18, 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, MN (2004) Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies Since 1945. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A, Hoffman, M, Morgan, J and Raymond, C (2017) One in a million: field experiments on perceived closeness of the election and voter turnout. NBER Working Paper No. 23071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geys, B (2006) “Rational” theories of voter turnout: a review. Political Studies Review 4, 16–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, DP and Shapiro, I (1994) Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Grembi, V, Nannicini, T and Troiano, U (2016) Do fiscal rules matter? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 8, 1–30.Google Scholar
Häusermann, S, Kurer, T and Wüest, B (2018) Participation in hard times: how constrained government depresses turnout among the highly educated. West European Politics 41, 448–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, F, Moessinger, M-D and Yeter, M (2018) Do fiscal rules constrain fiscal policy? A meta-regression-analysis. European Journal of Political Economy 51, 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hortala-Vallve, R and Larcinese, V (2017) The perverse consequences of policy restrictions in the presence of asymmetric information. Political Science Research and Methods 5, 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
i Coma, FM (2016) Turnout determinants in democracies and non-democracies. Electoral Studies 41, 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, K and Kim, S (2019) When should we use unit fixed effects regression models for causal inference with longitudinal data? American Journal of Political Science 63, 467–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) (2016) Codebook for Voter Turnout Data. Strömsborg: International IDEA.Google Scholar
Jensen, C and Jespersen, BB (2017) To have or not to have: effects of economic inequality on turnout in European democracies. Electoral Studies 45, 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasara, K and Suryanarayan, P (2015) When do the rich vote less than the poor and why? Explaining turnout inequality across the world. American Journal of Political Science 59, 613–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larcinese, V (2007) Voting over redistribution and the size of the welfare state: the role of turnout. Political Studies 55, 568–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A (1997) Unequal participation: democracy's unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review 91, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, J and Fisher, SD (2015) Compensation or constraint? How different dimensions of economic globalization affect government spending and electoral turnout. British Journal of Political Science 45, 353–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzer, A and Richards, S (1981) A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy 89, 914–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, MR (2015) Turnout as consent: how fair governance encourages voter participation. Political Research Quarterly 68, 363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskowitz, DJ and Schneer, B (2019) Reevaluating competition and turnout in U.S. house elections. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 14, 191–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, WH and Ordeshook, PC (1968) A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review 62, 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaechter, A, Kinda, T, Budina, N and Weber, A (2012) Fiscal rules in response to the crisis—Towards the “Next-Generation” rules. A new dataset. IMF Working Paper 12/187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, K and van Ham, C (2013) The embarrassment of riches? A meta-analysis of individual-level research on voter turnout. Electoral Studies 32, 344–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, ND (2016) Economic globalisation, the perceived room to manoeuvre of national governments, and electoral participation: evidence from the 2001 British general election. Electoral Studies 41, 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, ND and Martin, CW (2012) Economic integration, party polarisation and electoral turnout. West European Politics 35, 238–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, D, Kim, JH, Graham, M and Tavits, M (2015) How economic integration affects party issue emphases. Comparative Political Studies 48, 1227–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehner, J (2006) Assessing the power of the purse: an Index of legislative budget institutions. Political Studies 54, 767–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfinger, RE and Rosenstone, SJ (1980) Who Votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Aaskoven supplementary material

Appendices

Download Aaskoven supplementary material(File)
File 179.1 KB