 |
A Cross-national Comparative Study of the Policy Effects of Referendums
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
fect is weak, and only in some exceptional cases do we find empirical evidencecontradicting strongly the theoretically implied effect of referendums.
In the next section we start by briefly discussing the literature dealing with
the policy effects of referendums. We also highlight the main theoretical insightscoming from this literature. In section three we discuss the general studies onlabor regulation and more in detail the study by Botero, Djankov, Porta, Lopez-De-Silanes and Shleifer (2004), from which we draw most of our information onthe policy outcomes we wish to explain. Section four starts with a discussion ofthe empirical model we wish to estimate and our preferred estimator, before wepresent the empirical results for roughly ten policy outcomes. In section five wediscuss our results and, as conclusion, offer some general remarks on our futureresearch steps.
2
Policy effects of referendums
Most authors concur that the presence of institutions allowing for referendumsaffects policy outcomes.
4
Still debated, however, is the question how policy out-
comes are affected. This debate is quite likely strongest in the United States. Cri-tiques of direct legislation (e.g., Schrag, 1998; Smith, 1998; Broder, 2000; Haskell,2001; Sabato, Ernst and Larson, 2001) emphasize the influence of rich interestgroups on referendum results, which they judge as being problematic. Advocatesof direct legislation (e.g., Kirchg¨assner, Feld and Savioz, 1999; Waters, 2001; Mat-susaka, 2004), on the other hand, point to beneficial effects of referendums. Themost vocal proponents and adversaries of referendums rely, however, hardly onthe results from systematic analyses in their arguments.
Almost all of the systematic work on the policy effects of referendums has
focused on the subnational level (Lupia and Matsusaka, 2004) and dealt witheconomic issues. Starting with the pioneering work of Pommerehne (1978) study-ing expenditures at the municipal level,
5
many authors have studied the effect
of referendums in the United States at the state and local level, and in Switzer-
4
Cronin (1989, 232) may be one of the few remaining authors challenging this view.
5
While Pommerehne’s (1978) study is the first systematic empirical study on the effect of
referendums, Key and Crouch (1939) offer many key insights on this topic, especially the alltoo often forgotten difference between direct and indirect effects, also already alluded to byRappard (1912).
3
|
| | Authors: Hug, Simon. and Gilland Lutz, Karin. |
|
| |
|
|
fect is weak, and only in some exceptional cases do we find empirical evidence
contradicting strongly the theoretically implied effect of referendums.
In the next section we start by briefly discussing the literature dealing with
the policy effects of referendums. We also highlight the main theoretical insights
coming from this literature. In section three we discuss the general studies on
labor regulation and more in detail the study by Botero, Djankov, Porta, Lopez-
De-Silanes and Shleifer (2004), from which we draw most of our information on
the policy outcomes we wish to explain. Section four starts with a discussion of
the empirical model we wish to estimate and our preferred estimator, before we
present the empirical results for roughly ten policy outcomes. In section five we
discuss our results and, as conclusion, offer some general remarks on our future
research steps.
2
Policy effects of referendums
Most authors concur that the presence of institutions allowing for referendums
affects policy outcomes.
4
Still debated, however, is the question how policy out-
comes are affected. This debate is quite likely strongest in the United States. Cri-
tiques of direct legislation (e.g., Schrag, 1998; Smith, 1998; Broder, 2000; Haskell,
2001; Sabato, Ernst and Larson, 2001) emphasize the influence of rich interest
groups on referendum results, which they judge as being problematic. Advocates
of direct legislation (e.g., Kirchg¨assner, Feld and Savioz, 1999; Waters, 2001; Mat-
susaka, 2004), on the other hand, point to beneficial effects of referendums. The
most vocal proponents and adversaries of referendums rely, however, hardly on
the results from systematic analyses in their arguments.
Almost all of the systematic work on the policy effects of referendums has
focused on the subnational level (Lupia and Matsusaka, 2004) and dealt with
economic issues. Starting with the pioneering work of Pommerehne (1978) study-
ing expenditures at the municipal level,
5
many authors have studied the effect
of referendums in the United States at the state and local level, and in Switzer-
4
Cronin (1989, 232) may be one of the few remaining authors challenging this view.
5
While Pommerehne’s (1978) study is the first systematic empirical study on the effect of
referendums, Key and Crouch (1939) offer many key insights on this topic, especially the all
too often forgotten difference between direct and indirect effects, also already alluded to by
Rappard (1912).
3
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
