Nijmegen Centre for Economics (NiCE), Institute for Management Research (IMR), Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 11;13(10):e0203390. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203390. eCollection 2018.
Existing rational expectations models cannot satisfactorily explain why political budget manipulations systematically raise re-election chances and only occur in "specific contexts". This paper offers a theoretical explanation by including unsophisticated voters into an opportunistic political cycle model; unsophisticated voters are unable to take the optimal behaviour of other agents (fully) into account, but may, nonetheless, vaguely suspect government deception.
First, rationally expected manipulations are, on average, fruitless in equilibrium. By including unsophisticated voters we can, however, corroborate empirically found electoral effects of political budget manipulations. Second, unsophisticated voters become anxious and suspicious in an intransparent or uncertain world, but the government tries to "outperform" their scepticism by increasing budget manipulations in order to appear more competent and, ultimately, increase re-election chances. It is, therefore, not surprising that political budget cycles are observed in countries suffering from intransparencies such as developing countries or new democracies. Third and in addition, the model presented here predicts that political opportunism produces, unintentionally, a countercyclical policy effect in election years, thereby, for instance, alleviating the typical problem of policy procyclicality in developing countries.
The paper also offers a theoretical explanation for political distortions found in forecasts by US states. Based on overly optimistic revenue forecasts the incumbent state government can conduct expansionary fiscal policies in order to appear more competent prior to an upcoming election. Since the resulting deficit can only be observed afterwards, the government can effectively circumvent a constitutional balanced budget constraint. As a result, there are political forecast and budget cycles in the state. More generally, however, these findings may also apply to European countries where balanced budget constraints are or will be in place (for instance the debt brakes in Switzerland and Germany); similarly, they apply to the supra-national European Fiscal Compact of the European Union.
现有的理性预期模型无法令人满意地解释为什么政治预算操纵会系统性地提高连任机会,并且只发生在“特定背景下”。本文通过将不精明的选民纳入机会主义政治周期模型,提供了一个理论解释;不精明的选民无法(完全)考虑到其他代理人的最佳行为,但他们可能会模糊地怀疑政府的欺骗行为。
首先,在均衡中,理性预期的操纵平均来说是没有成效的。但是,通过纳入不精明的选民,我们可以验证政治预算操纵对选举的实证影响。其次,在不透明或不确定的世界中,不精明的选民会感到焦虑和怀疑,但政府试图通过增加预算操纵来“超越”他们的怀疑,以显得更有能力,并最终增加连任机会。因此,政治预算周期在面临透明度问题的国家(如发展中国家或新兴民主国家)中观察到也就不足为奇了。第三,此外,本文提出的模型还预测,政治机会主义会在选举年产生反周期的政策效应,从而缓解发展中国家政策顺周期的典型问题。
本文还为美国各州的预测中发现的政治扭曲提供了一个理论解释。基于过于乐观的收入预测,现任州政府可以在即将到来的选举前采取扩张性财政政策,以显得更有能力。由于由此产生的赤字只能在事后观察到,政府可以有效地规避宪法规定的预算平衡约束。因此,州政府存在政治预测和预算周期。更广泛地说,然而,这些发现也可能适用于实行或即将实行预算平衡约束的欧洲国家(例如瑞士和德国的债务刹车);同样,它们也适用于欧洲联盟的超国家欧洲财政契约。