Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:58:45.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Windows of opportunity: legislative fragmentation conditions the effect of partisanship on product market deregulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Michael G. Smith  and
Johannes Urpelainen
Michael G. Smith
Affiliation:
Global Strategy Group, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Johannes Urpelainen
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Columbia University, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous research on deregulation in industrialised countries emphasises differences between left-wing and right-wing parties, but data on product market regulation (PMR) indicate that these differences have been modest. If partisan preferences on the merits of deregulation differ sharply, why such modest differences? We argue that partisan differences only become pronounced when the government is strong and rules a relatively unified legislature. Thus, legislative fragmentation should reduce the left-right difference in PMR. We test this theory against PMR data in 29 industrialised countries, 1978–2007. We find that right-wing governments only have a strong negative effect on regulation if the legislature and the government are not fragmented.

Keywords

deregulationpartisanshippolitical economyproduct market regulation
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 36 , Supplement 1 , March 2016 , pp. 51 - 86
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2015 

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

Alesina, A. and Drazen, A. (1991) Why are Stabilizations Delayed? American Economic Review 81(5): 1170–1188.Google Scholar
Beck, N. and Katz, J. N. (1995) What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data. American Political Science Review 89(3): 634–647.Google Scholar
Beck, N. and Katz, J. N. (2011) Modeling Dynamics in Time-Series-Cross-Section Political Economy Data. Annual Review of Political Science 14: 331–352.Google Scholar
Becker, G. S. (1983) A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics 98(3): 371–400.Google Scholar
Belloc, F. and Nicita, A. (2011) Liberalization-Privatization Paths: Policies and Politics, Working Paper No. 609, Department of Economics at University of Siena, Siena, Italy.Google Scholar
Benoit, K. and Laver, M. (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boehmke, F. J. (2008) Grinter: A Stata Utility for Graphing the Marginal Effect of an Interacted Variable in Regression Models. Retrieved 21 June 2011 from http://myweb.uiowa.edu/fboehmke/methods.html.Google Scholar
Boix, C. (2000) Partisan Governments, the International Economy, and Macroeconomic Policies in Advanced Nations, 1960–93. World Politics 53(1): 38–73.Google Scholar
Bolick, C. (1995) Thatcher’s Revolution: Deregulation and Political Transformation. Yale Journal on Regulation 12(1): 526–548.Google Scholar
Brambor, T., Clark, W. R. and Golder, M. (2006) Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis 14(1): 63–82.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. M. (2002) The Politics of Postal Transformation: Modernizing Postal Systems in the Electronic and Global World. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, C. P. and Berdiev, A. N. (2011) The Political Economy of Energy Regulation in OECD Countries. Energy Economics 33(5): 816–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cioffi, J. W. and Höpner, M. (2006) The Political Paradox of Finance Capitalism: Interests, Preferences, and Center-Left Party Politics in Corporate Governance Reform. Politics and Society 34(4): 463–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boef, S. and Keele, L. (2008) Taking Time Seriously. American Journal of Political Science 52(1): 184–200.Google Scholar
Driscoll, J. and Kraay, A. (1998) Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation with Spatially-Dependent Panel Data. Review of Economics and Statistics 80(4): 549–560.Google Scholar
Eising, R. (2002) Policy Learning in Embedded Negotiations: Explaining EU Electricity Liberalization. International Organization 56(1): 85–120.Google Scholar
Evans, B. (1999) Thatcherism and British Politics: 1975–1999. Shroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing.Google Scholar
Fleming, M. and Button, K. (1989) Regulatory Reform in the UK. In Button K. and Swann D. (eds), The Age of Regulatory Reform. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 79–103.Google Scholar
Frye, T. (2002) The Perils of Polarization: Economic Performance in the Postcommunist World. World Politics 54(3): 308–336.Google Scholar
Garrett, G. (1998) Partisan Politics in the Global Economy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehlbach, S. and Malesky, E. J. (2010) The Contribution of Veto Players to Economic Reform. Journal of Politics 72(4): 957–975.Google Scholar
Grzymala-Busse, A. (2003) Political Competition and the Politicization of the State in East Central Europe. Comparative Political Studies 36(10): 1123–1146.Google Scholar
Hallerberg, M. and Basinger, S. J. (1998) Internationalization and Changes in Tax Policy in OECD Countries: The Importance of Domestic Veto Players. Comparative Political Studies 31(3): 321–353.Google Scholar
Hammond, T. H. and Butler, C. K. (2003) Some Complex Answers to the Simple Question Do Institutions Matter?’ Policy Choice and Policy Change in Presidential and Parliamentary Systems. Journal of Theoretical Politics 15(2): 145–200.Google Scholar
Hammond, T. H. and Knott, J. H. (1988) The Deregulatory Snowball: Explaining Deregulation in the Financial Industry. Journal of Politics 50(1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Henisz, W. J. (2000) The Institutional Environment for Economic Growth. Economics and Politics 12(1): 1–31.Google Scholar
Henisz, W. J., Zelner, B. A. and Guillen, M. F. (2005) The Worldwide Diffusion of Market-Oriented Infrastructure Reform, 1977–1999. American Sociological Review 70(6): 871–897.Google Scholar
Hirsh, R. F. (1999) Power Loss: The Origins of Deregulation and Restructuring in the American Electric Utility System. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Høj, J., Galasso, V., Nicoletti, G. and Dang, T.-T. (2006) The Political Economy of Structural Reform: Empirical Evidence from OECD Countries, Working Paper No. 501, OECD Economics Department.Google Scholar
Matthews, K. and Minford, P. (1987) Mrs. Thatcher’s Economic Policies 1979–1987. Economic Policy 2(5): 57–101.Google Scholar
Meseguer, C. (2004) What Role for Learning? The Diffusion of Privatisation in OECD and Latin American Countries. Journal of Public Policy 24(3): 299–325.Google Scholar
Murillo, M. V. and Martínez-Gallardo, C. (2007) Political Competition and Policy Adoption: Market Reforms in Latin American Public Utilities. American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 120–139.Google Scholar
Nickell, S. (1981) Biases in Dynamic Model with Fixed Effects. Econometrica 49(6): 1417–1426.Google Scholar
Pitlik, H. (2007) A Race to Liberalization? Diffusion of Economic Policy Reform Among OECD-Economies. Public Choice 132(1–2): 159–178.Google Scholar
Potrafke, N. (2009) Did Globalization Restrict Partisan Politics? An Empirical Evaluation of Social Expenditures in a Panel of OECD Countries. Public Choice 104(1–2): 105–124.Google Scholar
Potrafke, N. (2010) Does Government Ideology Influence Deregulation of Product Markets? Empirical Evidence from OECD Countries. Public Choice 143(1–2): 135–155.Google Scholar
Roubini, N. and Sachs, J. D. (1989) Political and Economic Determinants of Budget Deficits in the Industrial Democracies. European Economic Review 33(5): 903–938.Google Scholar
Spiller, P. T. and Tommasi, M. (2003) The Institutional Foundations of Public Policy: A Transactions Approach with Application to Argentina. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 19(2): 281–306.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vogel, S. K. (1999) Freer Markets, More Rules: Regulatory Reform in Advanced Industrial Countries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Volkens, A., Lehmann, P., Merz, N., Regel, S., Werner, A., Lacewell, O. P. and Schultze, H. (2013) The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2013b. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Smith and Urpelainen supplementary material

Appendix

Download Smith and Urpelainen supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 6.2 MB