Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:22:05.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Do Campaign Spending Limits Affect Elections? Evidence from the United Kingdom 1885–2019

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2020

ALEXANDER FOUIRNAIES Open the ORCID record for ALEXANDER FOUIRNAIES [Opens in a new window]
ALEXANDER FOUIRNAIES*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
*
Alexander Fouirnaies, Assistant Professor, Harris School, University of Chicago, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In more than half of the democratic countries in the world, candidates face legal constraints on how much money they can spend on their electoral campaigns, yet we know little about the consequences of these restrictions. I study how spending limits affect UK House of Commons elections. I contribute new data on the more than 70,000 candidates who ran for a parliamentary seat from 1885 to 2019, and I document how much money each candidate spent, how they allocated their resources across different spending categories, and the spending limit they faced. To identify the effect on elections, I exploit variation in spending caps induced by reforms of the spending-limit formula that affected some but not all constituencies. The results indicate that when the level of permitted spending is increased, the cost of electoral campaigns increases, which is primarily driven by expenses related to advertisement and mainly to the disadvantage of Labour candidates; the pool of candidates shrinks and elections become less competitive; and the financial and electoral advantages enjoyed by incumbents are amplified.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 115 , Issue 2 , May 2021 , pp. 395 - 411
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

For helpful comments and suggestions, I thank Scott Ashworth, Chris Berry, Peter Buisseret, David Butler, Julia Cagé, Gary Cox, Torun Dewan, Edgard Dewitte, Wiola Dziuda, Andy Eggers, Anthony Fowler, Ron Johnston, Jens Hainmueller, Andy Hall, Dominik Hangartner, Jim Fearon, Steve Levitt, Roger Myerson, Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, Jim Snyder, Arthur Spirling, and Stephane Wolton. I thank the participants at Stanford University’s Comparative Politics Workshop, Nuffield College’s Politics Workshop, and the University of Copenhagen’s Economics Department Workshop. I’m indebted to Andy Eggers and Arthur Spirling for generously sharing their data on the electoral outcomes of general elections. For excellent research assistance, I thank George Beknazar, Rachel Dec, Elysa Geras, Alec MacMillen, and Saurabh Sharma. All remaining errors are my own. Replication files are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AP0DHP.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1991. “Incumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of Competition in US House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 53 (1): 34–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, de Figueiredo, John M., and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2003. “Why is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (1): 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avis, Eric, Ferraz, Claudio, Finan, Frederico, and Varjão, Carlos. 2018. “Money and Politics: The Effects of Campaign Spending Limits on Political Competition and Incumbency Advantage.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper. Accessed September 6, 2020. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~ffinan/Finan_Limits.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Marsh, Michael. 2010. “Incumbent and Challenger Campaign Spending Effects in Proportional Electoral Systems: The Irish Elections of 2002.” Political Research Quarterly 63 (1): 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlinski, Samuel, and Dewan, Torun. 2011. “The Political Consequences of Franchise Extension: Evidence from the Second Reform Act.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 6 (3–4): 329–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blewett, Neal. 1965. “The Franchise in the United Kingdom 1885-1918.” Past & Present 32 (1): 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bombardini, Matilde, and Trebbi, Francesco. 2011. “Votes or Money? Theory and Evidence from the US Congress.” Journal of Public Economics 95 (7–8): 587–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonneau, Chris W., and Cann, Damon M.. 2011. “Campaign Spending, Diminishing Marginal Returns, and Campaign Finance Restrictions in Judicial Elections.” The Journal of Politics 73 (4): 1267–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouton, Laurent, Castanheira, Micael, and Drazen, Allan. 2018. “A Theory of Small Campaign Contributions.” NBER, Working Paper. Accessed September 6, 2018. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/be0c/e4ccc50dc85f6b389a48fbe2c318f9a354d6.pdf. Google Scholar
Butler, David. 1963. The Electoral System in Britain: Since 1918. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Cagé, Julia, and Dewitte, Edgard. 2020. “It Takes Money to Make MPs: New Evidence from 150 Years of British Campaign Spending.” Science Po Paris, Working Paper. Accessed August 31, 2020. https://juliacage.com/research/#abstract123.Google Scholar
Chamon, Marcos, and Kaplan, Ethan. 2013. “The Iceberg Theory of Campaign Contributions: Political Threats and Interest Group Behavior.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5 (1): 1–31.Google Scholar
Che, Yeon-Koo, and Gale, Ian L.. 1998. “Caps on Political Lobbying.” The American Economic Review 88 (3): 643–651.Google Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C., and Fouirnaies, Alexander. 2014. “Representation and District Magnitude in Plurality Systems.” Electoral Studies 33: 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C., and Spirling, Arthur. 2014. “Guarding the Guardians: Legislative Self-Policing and Electoral Corruption in Victorian Britain.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9 (3): 337–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C., and Spirling, Arthur. 2016. “Party Cohesion in Westminster Systems: Inducements, Replacement and Discipline in the House of Commons, 1836–1910.” British Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 567–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2000. “Equilibria in Campaign Spending Games: Theory and Data.” American Political Science Review 94 (3): 595–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Justin, Denver, David, and Hands, Gordon. 2006. “Unsung Heroes: Constituency Election Agents in British General Elections.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 8 (4): 569–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan. 1998. “Estimating the Effect of Campaign Spending on Senate Election Outcomes Using Instrumental Variables.” American Political Science Review 92 (2): 401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iaryczower, Matias, and Mattozzi, Andrea. 2012. “The Pro-Competitive Effect of Campaign Limits in Non-Majoritarian Elections.” Economic Theory 49 (3): 591–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1978. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 72 (2): 469–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1990. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 334–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Ronald, and Pattie, Charles. 2007. “Funding Local Political Parties in England and Wales: Donations and Constituency Campaigns.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9 (3): 365–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Ron, Pattie, Charles, and Hartman, Todd. 2019. “Spending, Canvassing and Electoral Success in Marginal Constituencies: England and Scotland in 2017.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2019.1582534.Google Scholar
Johnston, Ronald J. 1979. “Campaign Expenditure and the Efficacy of Advertising at the 1974 General Election in England.” Political Studies 27 (1): 114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Ronald J., and Pattie, Charles J.. 1995. “The Impact of Spending on Party Constituency Campaigns at Recent British General Elections.” Party Politics 1 (2): 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Ronald J., Pattie, Charles J., and Johnston, Lucy C.. 1989. “The Impact of Constituency Spending on the Result of the 1987 British General Election.” Electoral Studies 8 (2): 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Ronald John. 2014. Money and Votes: Constituency Campaign Spending and Election Results. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Todd R., and Wettstein, David. 2006. “Caps on Political Lobbying: Comment.” American Economic Review 96 (4): 1351–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasno, Jonathan S., and Green, Donald Philip. 1993. “Stopping the Buck Here: The Case for Campaign Spending Limits.” The Brookings Review 11 (2): 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laakso, Markku, and Taagepera, Rein. 1979. “Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 12 (1): 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, Steven D. 1994. “Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House.” The Journal of Political Economy 102 (4): 777–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, Steven D. 1995. “Policy Watch: Congressional Campaign Finance Reform.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (1): 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meirowitz, Adam. 2008. “Electoral Contests, Incumbency Advantages, and Campaign Finance.” The Journal of Politics 70 (3): 681–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milligan, Kevin, and Rekkas, Marie. 2008. “Campaign Spending Limits, Incumbent Spending, and Election Outcomes.” Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique 41 (4): 1351–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B., and Myerson, Roger B.. 2012. “Decisiveness of Contributors’ Perceptions in Elections.” Economic Theory 49 (3): 571–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Donoghue, Jim, Golding, Louise, and Allen, Grahame. 2004. Consumer Price Inflation since 1750. London: Office for National Statistics.Google Scholar
Ohman, Magnus. 2012. Political Finance Regulations around the World: An Overview of the International IDEA Database. Stockholm, Sweden: IDEA (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance).Google Scholar
Palda, Filip. 1994. “Desirability and Effects of Campaign Spending Limits.” Crime, Law and Social Change 21 (4): 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pastine, Ivan, and Pastine, Tuvana. 2012. “Incumbency Advantage and Political Campaign Spending Limits.” Journal of Public Economics 96 (1): 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattie, Charles J., and Johnston, Ron J.. 2003. “Local Battles in a National Landslide: Constituency Campaigning at the 2001 British General Election.” Political Geography 22 (4): 381–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattie, Charles, and Johnston, Ron. 2009. “Still Talking, but Is Anyone Listening? The Changing Face of Constituency Campaigning in Britain, 1997–2005.” Party Politics 15 (4): 411–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattie, Charles J., Johnston, Ronald J., and Fieldhouse, Edward A.. 1995. “Winning the Local Vote: The Effectiveness of Constituency Campaign Spending in Great Britain, 1983–1992.” American Political Science Review 89 (4): 969–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattie, Charles, Hartman, Todd, and Johnston, Ron. 2017. “Incumbent Parties, Incumbent MPs and the Effectiveness of Constituency Campaigns: Evidence from the 2015 UK General Election.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 19 (4): 824–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto-Duschinsky, Michael. 1981. British Political Finance, 1830-1980, Vol. 330. Washington, DC: AEI Press.Google Scholar
Prat, Andrea. 2002a. “Campaign Advertising and Voter Welfare.” The Review of Economic Studies 69 (4): 999–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prat, Andrea. 2002b. “Campaign Spending with Office-Seeking Politicians, Rational Voters, and Multiple Lobbies.” Journal of Economic Theory 103 (1): 162–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossiter, David J., Johnston, Ronald John, and Pattie, Charles J.. 1999. The Boundary Commissions: Redrawing the UK’s Map of Parliamentary Constituencies. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Sahuguet, Nicolas, and Persico, Nicola. 2006. “Campaign Spending Regulation in a Model of Redistributive Politics.” Economic Theory 28 (1): 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Fouirnaies Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AP0DHP
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Fouirnaies supplementary material

Fouirnaies supplementary material

Download Fouirnaies supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 406.9 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.