Romer and Rosenthal's main point is that empirical evidence of the median voter theorem is not as solid as people think (or thought, in 1979). Existing studies (like that of Bergstrom and Goodman 1973) had demonstrated that expenditures across political units were correlated with characteristics of the median voter, particularly his income and tax price. But this would be the finding even under plausible alternatives to the median voter theorem.
Their critique centers on two problems they see in existing literature on the median voter theorem:
- the multiple fallacy: It is not clear from existing studies whether the median voter gets what he wants or some multiple of what he wants.
- the fractile fallacy: It is not clear if the median is the pivotal voter or a voter at some other place in the distribution is the median voter.
These are useful criticisms. Of note are the mentions in the paper to survey-based research that does a better job than Bergstrom and Goodman at estimating individual demand functions for public goods. Still missing it seems are natural experiment-based approaches to estimating the responsiveness of policy to the median voter, such as Lott and Kenny's work on the effect of female suffrage on social spending.
No comments:
Post a Comment