Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T18:52:43.749Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Strategic Role of Party Ideology When Voters Are Uncertain about How the Economy Works

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

John E. Roemer
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis

Abstract

A continuum of voters, indexed by income, have preferences over economic outcomes. Two political parties each represent the interests of given constituencies of voters: the rich and the poor. Parties/candidates put forth policies—for instance, tax policy, where taxes finance a public good. Voters are uncertain about the theory of the economy, the function that maps policies into economic outcomes. Parties argue, as well, for theories of the economy. Each voter has a prior probability distribution over possible theories of the economy; after parties announce their theories of the economy, each voter constructs an a posteriori distribution over such theories. Suppose that voters are unsure how efficiently the government converts tax revenues into the public good. Under reasonable assumptions the party representing the rich argues that the government is very inefficient and the party representing the poor argues the opposite. What appear as liberal and conservative ideological views emerge as simply good strategies in the electoral game.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1994

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, Alberto. 1988. “Credibility and Policy Convergence in a Two-Party System with Rational Voters.” American Economic Review 78:796806.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, David. 1990. “Credible Debate Equilibria.” Social Choice and Welfare 7:7593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, Randall. 1985. “Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence.” American Journal of Political Science 29:6995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth, and Lupia, Arthur. 1992. “Competitive Campaigns and the Responsiveness of Collective Choice.” University of California, San Diego. Typescript.Google Scholar
Hansson, Ingemar, and Stuart, Charles. 1984. “Voting Competitions with Interested Politicians: Platforms Do Not Converge to the Preferences of the Median Voter.” Public Choice 44:431–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Mebane, Walter R. Jr., 1983. “Politics and Economics in Everyday Life.” In The Political Process and Economic Change, ed. Monroe, K. R.. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1992. “Credibility and the Responsiveness to Direct Legislation.” University of California, San Diego. Typescript.Google Scholar
Roemer, John E. 1993. “Political-Economic Equilibrium When Parties Represent Constituents: The Unidimensional Case.” Department of Economics Working Paper No. 93–19. University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Roemer, John E. N.d. “A Theory of Differentiated Politics in a Single-Issue Framework.” Social Choice and Welfare. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1977. “Candidates with Policy Preferences: A Dynamic Model.” Journal of Economic Theory 14:180–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1990. “Spatial Strategies When Candidates Have Policy Preferences.” In Readings in the Spatial Theory of Elections, ed. Enelow, J. and Hinich, M.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar