Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-5mhkq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-11T23:40:12.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Legislature Size on Public Spending: A Meta-Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2022

Danilo Freire Open the ORCID record for Danilo Freire [Opens in a new window] ,
Umberto Mignozzetti Open the ORCID record for Umberto Mignozzetti [Opens in a new window] ,
Catarina Roman Open the ORCID record for Catarina Roman [Opens in a new window]  and
Huzeyfe Alptekin Open the ORCID record for Huzeyfe Alptekin [Opens in a new window]
Danilo Freire
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, United Kingdom
Umberto Mignozzetti*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Computational Social Sciences Program, University of California, San Diego, USA
Catarina Roman
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego, USA
Huzeyfe Alptekin
Affiliation:
Independent Researcher, São Paulo, Brazil
*
*Corresponding author. Email: umbertomig@ucsd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In path-breaking work, Weingast et al. argue that there is a positive relationship between legislature size and inefficiency in public expenditures. Their proposition is currently known as the ‘law of 1/n’ and has been widely debated in political science and public administration. However, recent studies have questioned the validity of the theory. In this letter, we conduct the first meta-analysis that assesses the generality of the ‘law of 1/n’. Based on a sample of thirty articles, we find no robust evidence suggesting that legislature size has either a positive or a negative effect on government budgets. Yet, the aggregate results mask considerable heterogeneity. Our findings provide moderate support for the ‘law of 1/n’ in unicameral legislatures and in upper houses, but they also indicate that studies using panel/fixed-effects models or regression-discontinuity designs report negative public spending estimates. We find only limited evidence that electoral systems impact public spending, which suggests that proportional representation systems may not be more prone to overspending than majoritarian ones.

Keywords

distributive politicslaw of 1/nlegislature sizemeta-analysispublic spendingH21H23H50H61
Type
Letter
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 776 - 788
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Angrist, JD and Pischke, J-S (2008) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balduzzi, S, Rücker, G and Schwarzer, G (2019) How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evidence-Based Mental Health 22(4), 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baqir, R (1999) Districts, spillovers, and government overspending. Policy Research Paper No. 2192. The World Bank, 1–56. Available at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/969221468781782275/pdf/multi-page.pdf (accessed November 2022).Google Scholar
Baqir, R (2002) Districting and government overspending. Journal of Political Economy 110(6), 1318–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskaran, T (2013) Coalition governments, cabinet size, and the common pool problem: evidence from the German states. European Journal of Political Economy 32, 356–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjedov, T, Lapointe, S and Madiès, T (2014) The impact of within-party and between-party ideological dispersion on fiscal outcomes: evidence from Swiss cantonal parliaments. Public Choice 161(1), 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, J and Crain, W (2001) Legislative organization and government spending: cross-country evidence. Journal of Public Economics 82(3), 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J and Malhotra, N (2007) The law of k/n: the effect of chamber size on government spending in bicameral legislatures. American Political Science Review 101(4), 657–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, MW-L (2014) Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: a structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods 19(2), 211–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheung, MW-L (2019) A guide to conducting a meta-analysis with non-independent effect sizes. Neuropsychology Review 29(4), 387–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cinelli, C and Hazlett, C (2020) Making sense of sensitivity: extending omitted variable bias. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 82(1), 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coate, S and Knight, B (2011) Government form and public spending: theory and evidence from US municipalities. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 3(3), 82–112.Google Scholar
Cooper, H, Hedges, LV and Valentine, JC (2019) The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, M (2017) How responsive are political elites? A meta-analysis of experiments on public officials. Journal of Experimental Political Science 4(3), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, GR (2015) Local intergovernmental competition and the law of 1/n. Southern Economic Journal 81(3), 742–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, GR (2019) The law of 1/n revisited: distributive politics, legislature size, and the costs of collective action. Southern Economic Journal 86(2), 667–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Benedetto, MA (2018) The Effect of Council Size on Municipal Expenditures: Evidence from Italian Municipalities. Technical report, Birkbeck, Department of Economics, Mathematics & Statistics, 1–25. Available at: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/26853/1/26853.pdf (accessed November 2022).Google Scholar
Doucouliagos, H and Ulubaşoğlu, MA (2008) Democracy and economic growth: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Political Science 52(1), 61–83.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00299.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, J and Dollery, B (2017) The price of democracy? Political representation structure and per capita expenditure in Victorian local government. Urban Affairs Review 53(3), 522–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erler, HA (2007) Legislative term limits and state spending. Public Choice 133(3–4), 479–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorino, N and Ricciuti, R (2007) Legislature size and government spending in Italian regions: forecasting the effects of a reform. Public Choice 131(1–2), 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire, D Mignozzetti, U Roman, C and Alptekin, H (2022) Replication Data for: ‘The Effect of Legislature Size on Public Spending: A Meta Analysis’, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5DEGYP, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:t59syIcrOpp6xhXVqkyJWw== [fileUNF]. Replication materials are also available at: https://github.com/danilofreire/legislature-size-meta-analysis.Google Scholar
Geddes, B (2003) Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, TW and Matsusaka, JG (1995) Deviations from constituent interests: the role of legislative structure and political parties in the states. Economic Inquiry 33(3), 383–401.10.1111/j.1465-7295.1995.tb01870.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, TW and Matsusaka, JG (2001) Fiscal policy, legislature size, and political parties: evidence from state and local governments in the first half of the 20th century. National Tax Journal 54(1), 57–82.Google Scholar
Gilligan, TW and Matsusaka, JG (2006) Public choice principles of redistricting. Public Choice 129(3), 381–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, GV (2015) Meta-analysis at middle age: a personal history. Research Synthesis Methods 6(3), 221–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, DP, McGrath, MC and Aronow, PM (2013) Field experiments and the study of voter turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 23(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrer, M et al. (2019) dmetar: Companion R Package for the Guide ‘Doing Meta-Analysis in R’. R package version 0.0.9000. Available at: https://dmetar.protectlab.org (accessed November 2022).Google Scholar
Hedges, LV (1981) Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics 6(2), 107–128.Google Scholar
Hedges, LV and Olkin, I (1985) Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, J et al. (2019) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, JP and Thompson, SG (2004) Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Statistics in Medicine 23(11), 1663–1682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Höhmann, D (2017) The effect of legislature size on public spending: evidence from a regression discontinuity design. Public Choice 173(3), 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, AS (2014) Communication in federal politics: universalism, policy uniformity, and the optimal allocation of fiscal authority. Journal of Political Economy 122(4), 766–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakens, D (2013) Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology 4, 863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, RR, Sigelman, L and Rovner, IB (2007) The effects of negative political campaigns: a meta-analytic reassessment. The Journal of Politics 69(4), 1176–1209.10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D (2015) Supermajority rule and the law of 1/n. Public Choice 164(3), 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D (2016) Supermajority rule and bicameral bargaining. Public Choice 169(1–2), 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D and Park, S (2018) Court-ordered redistricting and the law of 1/n. Public Choice 176(3), 507–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, BD (2019) Legislature size, local government expenditure and taxation, and public service access in Indonesia. Studies in Comparative International Development 54, 274–298.10.1007/s12116-019-09278-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberati, A et al. (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 6(7), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lledo, V (2003) Electoral systems, legislative fragmentation and public spending: a comparative analysis of Brazilian states. Paper presented at the 2003 Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, 1–25. Available at: https://economia.uniandes.edu.co/sites/default/files/imagenes/eventos/2lledo.pdf (accessed November 2022).Google Scholar
MacDonald, L (2008) The impact of government structure on local public expenditures. Public Choice 136(3), 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maldonado, B (2013) Legislatures, leaders, and leviathans: how constitutional institutions affect the size of government spending. Social Science Quarterly 94(4), 1102–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, JG (2005) The endogeneity of the initiative: a comment on Marschall and Ruhil. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5(4), 356–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthes, J et al. (2019) A meta-analysis of the effects of cross-cutting exposure on political participation. Political Communication 36(4), 523–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, B (2003) Political parties and the size of government in multiparty legislatures: examining cross-country and panel data evidence. Comparative Political Studies 36(6), 699–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, J (2015) Conditioning on post-treatment variables. Journal of Causal Inference 3(1), 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pecorino, P (2018) Supermajority rule, the law of 1/n, and government spending: a synthesis. Public Choice 175(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersson-Lidbom, P (2012) Does the size of the legislature affect the size of government? Evidence from two natural experiments. Journal of Public Economics 96(3), 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primo, DM (2006) Stop us before we spend again: institutional constraints on government spending. Economics & Politics 18(3), 269–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primo, DM and Snyder, JM (2008) Distributive politics and the law of 1/n. The Journal of Politics 70(2), 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2019) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Ricciuti, R (2003) Trading interests: legislature size, constituency size and government spending in a panel of countries. Rivista di Politica Economica 93(1), 315–335.Google Scholar
Ricciuti, R (2004) Legislatures and Government Spending: Evidence from Democratic Countries. ICER Working Papers, 1–25. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6929154.pdf (accessed November 2022).Google Scholar
Schaltegger, C and Feld, L (2009) Do large cabinets favor large governments? Evidence on the fiscal commons problem for Swiss cantons. Journal of Public Economics 93(1–2), 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, S and Coppock, A (2020) What Have We Learned about Gender from Candidate Choice Experiments? A Meta-Analysis of 67 Factorial Survey Experiments. Available from https://alexandercoppock.com/schwarz_coppock_2020.html (accessed May 2021).Google Scholar
Stein, E, Talvi, E and Grisanti, A (1998) Institutional Arrangements and Fiscal Performance: The Latin American Experience. NBER Working Paper No. 6358, 1–52. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=84088 (accessed November 2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veroniki, AA et al. (2016) Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods 7(1), 55–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weingast, B, Shepsle, KA and Johnsen, C (1981) The political economy of benefits and costs: a neoclassical approach to distributive politics. Journal of Political Economy 89(4), 642–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Freire et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5DEGYP
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Freire et al. supplementary material

Freire et al. supplementary material

Download Freire et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 996.9 KB