Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T01:16:04.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scandal, Protection, and Recovery in the Cabinet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2007

TORUN DEWAN  and
DAVID P. MYATT
TORUN DEWAN
Affiliation:
London School of Economics
DAVID P. MYATT
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Empirical evidence suggests that a prime minister benefits from firing ministers who are involved in political scandals. We explore a model in which scandals are positively related to policy activism, so that a prime minister may wish to protect a minister from resignation calls. We find that protection can sometimes discourage activism: it enhances the value of a minister's career and hence encourages him to “sit tight” by moderating his activities. On the other hand, an exogenous increase in exposure to scandals may lead a minister to “live for today” by pursuing controversial policies. The prime minister's ability to protect ministers is limited by her short-term incentive to fire. She may, however, enhance her credibility by building a collective reputation with the cabinet; the heterogeneity of cabinet membership plays an important role.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 101 , Issue 1 , February 2007 , pp. 63 - 77
Copyright
© 2007 by the American Political Science Association

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

Bernheim B. Douglas, and Michael D. Whinston. 1990. “Multimarket Contact and Collusive Behavior.” RAND Journal of Economics 21 (1): 1– 26.Google Scholar
Besley Tim, and Anne Case. 1995. “Incumbent Behaviour: Vote-Seeking, Tax-Setting and Yardstick Competition.” American Economic Review 85 (1): 25– 45.Google Scholar
Browne Eric C., John P. Frendreis, and Dennis W. Gleiber. 1984. “An ‘Events’ Approach to the Problem of Cabinet Stability.” Comparative Political Studies 17 (1): 167– 97.Google Scholar
Browne Eric C., John P. Frendreis, and Dennis W. Gleiber. 1986. “The Process of Cabinet Dissolution: An Exponential Model of Duration and Stability in Western Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 30 (3): 628– 50.Google Scholar
Caselli Francesco, and Massimo Morelli. 2004. “Bad Politicians.” Journal of Public Economics 88 (3–4): 759– 82.Google Scholar
Dal Bó Ernesto, Pedro Dal Bó, and Rafael Di Tella. 2006. “Plata o Plomo? Bribe and Punishment in a Theory of Political Influence.” American Political Science Reivew 100 (1): 41– 53.Google Scholar
Dal Bó Ernesto, and Rafael Di Tella. 2003. “Capture by Threat.” Journal of Political Economy 111 (5): 1123– 54.Google Scholar
Dewan Torun, and Keith Dowding. 2005. “The Corrective Effect of Ministerial Resignations.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 46– 56.Google Scholar
Diermeier Daniel, Michael Keane, and Antonio Merlo. 2005. “A Political Economy Model of Congressional Careers.” American Economic Review 95 (1): 347– 73.Google Scholar
Diermeier Daniel, and Randolph T. Stevenson. 2000. “Cabinet Terminations and Critical Events.” American Political Science Review 94 (3): 627– 40.Google Scholar
Diermeier Daniel, and Randy T. Stevenson. 1999. “Cabinet Survival and Competing Risks.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (4): 1051– 68.Google Scholar
Doig A. 1993. “The Double Whammy: The Resignation of David Mellor, MP.” Journal of Parliamentary Affairs 46 (2): 167– 91.Google Scholar
Huber John D., and Cecilia Martinez-Gallardo. 2004. “Cabinet Instability and the Accumulation of Experience: The French Fourth and Fifth Republics in Comparative Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science 34 (1): 27– 48.Google Scholar
Indridason Indridi, and Christopher Kam. 2005a. “Cabinet Reshuffles and Ministerial Drift.” Working Paper.Google Scholar
Indridason Indridi, and Christopher Kam. 2005b. “The Timing of Cabinet Reshuffles in Five Westminster Parliamentary Systems.” Legislative Studies Quarterly XXX (3): 327– 63.Google Scholar
Krehbiel Keith. 1993. “Where's the Party.” British Journal of Political Science 23 (2): 235– 66.Google Scholar
Levy Gilat. 2004. “A Model of Political Parties.” Journal of Economic Theory 115: 250– 77.Google Scholar
Lohmann Susanne. 1997. “Linkage Politics.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (1): 38– 67.Google Scholar
Lupia Arthur, and Kaare Strøm. 1995. “Coalition Termination and the Strategic Timing of Parliamentary Elections.” American Political Science Review 89 (3): 648– 65.Google Scholar
MacLeod W. Bentley, and James M. Malcomson. 1988. “Reputation and Hierarchy in Dynamic Models of Employment.” Journal of Political Economy 96 (4): 832– 54.Google Scholar
MacLeod W. Bentley, and James M. Malcomson. 1989. “Implicit Contracts, Incentive Compatibility, and Involuntary Unemployment.” Econometrica 57 (2): 447– 80.Google Scholar
Morelli Massimo. 2004. “Party Formation and Policy Outcomes under Different Electoral Systems.” Review of Economic Studies 71 (3): 829– 53.Google Scholar
Palmer Mathew. 1995. “Towards an Economics of Comparative Political Organisation: Examining Ministerial Responsibility.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organisation 11 (1): 164– 88.Google Scholar
Stasavage David, and Dominique Guillaume. 2002. “When are Monetary Commitments Credible? Parallel Agreements and the Sustainability of Currency Unions.” British Journal of Political Science 32: 119– 46.Google Scholar
Strøm Kaare. 2000. “Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 37 (3): 261– 89.Google Scholar
Thies Michael. 2001. “Keeping Tabs on Coaliton Partners: The Logic of Delegation in Cabinet Governments.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (3): 580– 98.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.