A simple twist of fate. An experiment on election uncertainty and democratic institutions

dc.contributor.authorFatas, Enrique
dc.contributor.authorRestrepo Plaza, Lina M.
dc.contributor.authorBanuri, Sheheryar
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-08T14:26:05Z
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-08T14:41:53Z
dc.date.embargoEndDate2035-10-30spa
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractIn this paper we study electoral systems in an experimental governance game in which citizens contribute to a public good and policymakers decide how to distribute it. In the Voting condition, citizens receive information about the policymaker performance (how much she shared of the public good with individual participants), her skills and her altruism, and vote directly for a policymaker for the next election cycle. In the Referendum condition voters receive information about the policymaker's performance before deciding whether to remove her from office in a simpler binary choice (in or out). If they decide to remove the incumbent, a new policymaker is chosen randomly from the remaining group members, in the spirit of referendums like Brexit or the plebiscite about the peace agreements in Colombia. We compare these two electoral mechanisms with two baselines in which the policymaker is never replaced (Baseline) and another one (Random) in which the policymaker is always randomly replaced by another participant. Our results show that both electoral mechanisms are largely effective in improving citizens’ earnings by generating more equitable sharing rules. Citizens in Voting and Referendum extract greater surplus from policymakers than in the other conditions and voting against a candidate (Referendum) is more effective in increasing surplus than voting for a candidate (Voting). Contributions to the public good and conditional cooperation patterns remain strikingly similar in democratic (Referendum and Voting) and non-democratic (Baseline and Random) conditions. Empirical expectations about contributions of other citizens are similar as well. However, we show that policymakers distribute the public good differently in democratic institutions, and more effectively in Referendum than in Voting, as policymakers use clientelist transfers to avoid being replaced. Overall, both democratic institutions are effective in improving citizens’ payoffs by indirectly limiting policymakers’ surplus.spa
dc.description.filiationUEVspa
dc.description.impact2.3 Q2 JCR 2023spa
dc.description.impact1.326 Q1 SJR 2023spa
dc.description.impactNo data IDR 2023spa
dc.description.sponsorshipSin financiaciónspa
dc.embargo.lift2035-10-30
dc.identifier.citationFatas, E., Restrepo-Plaza, L., & Banuri, S. (2024). A simple twist of fate. An experiment on election uncertainty and democratic institutions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 225, 272-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2024.07.007spa
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jebo.2024.07.007
dc.identifier.issn0167-2681
dc.identifier.issn1879-1751
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11268/13403
dc.language.isoengspa
dc.peerreviewedSispa
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2024.07.007spa
dc.rights.accessRightsembargoed accessspa
dc.subject.sdgGoal 16: Promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies
dc.subject.unescoCiencias del comportamientospa
dc.subject.unescoDemocraciaspa
dc.titleA simple twist of fate. An experiment on election uncertainty and democratic institutionsspa
dc.typejournal articlespa
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files