Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:06:33.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary on “Lobbying and Legislative Organization: The Effect of the Vote of Confidence Procedure”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David P. Baron
David P. Baron*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
Graduate School of Business, 518 Memorial Way, Stanford University, Stanford, CA94305-5015, USA. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Center for Responsive Politics reports that U.S. lobbying expenditures substantially exceed interest group campaign contributions, without including the lobbying that is not required to be reported to the government. Although it has grown in Europe, particularly with respect to the European Union, lobbying is less important than in the United States. Bennedsen and Feldmann (BF) provide an important and insightful explanation for the difference in terms of the institutional structure of governments. They present a model of informational lobbying in client politics where an interest group provides information to a majority-rule (three-member) legislature. The legislature chooses the scale of a program whose benefits can be distributed among legislative districts. The legislative agenda setter has a vote buying problem and allocates benefits to one other legislator to obtain her vote. BF compare legislatures operating with and without a confidence procedure that allows the agenda setter to tie passage of its proposal the continuation of the government. This commentary considers the method for comparing these two institutions, assesses the implications of the theory, and considers future research related to the theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business and Politics , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , August 2002 , pp. 205 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © V.K. Aggarwal 2002 and published under exclusive license to Cambridge University Press 

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

Austen-Smith, David and Wright, John R. 1992. “Competitive Lobbying for Legislators’ Votes.” Social Choice and Welfare 9: 229–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, David P. 1991. “Majoritarian Incentives, Pork Barrel Programs, and Their Control.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 57–90.Google Scholar
Baron, David P. 1998. “Comparative Dynamics of Parliamentary Systems.” American Political Science Review 92: 593–609.Google Scholar
Baron, David P. and Ferejohn, John A. 1989. “Bargaining in Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 83: 1181–1206.Google Scholar
Dewatripoint, Mathias and Tirole, Jean. 1999. “Advocates.” Journal of Political Economy 107: 1–39.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel and Feddersen, Timothy J. 1998. “Cohesion in Legislatures and the Vote of Confidence Procedure.” American Political Science Review 92: 611–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber John, D. 1996. “The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies.” American Political Science Review 90: 269–282.Google Scholar
Strom, Kaare, Mueller, Wolfgang C. and Bergman, Torbjom, eds. 2003. Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar