IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v49y2001i1p70-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political Parties, Political Integrity and Public Policy: a ‘Transactions Costs’ Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Jones
  • John Hudson

Abstract

Increasing concern about political ‘sleaze’ prompted the establishment, in 1995, of the Standing Committee of Standards in Public Life and the announcement, in 1999, of proposals to reform political party finance in the UK. A ‘public choice’ analysis predicts ‘opportunism’ by representatives at the expense of ‘rationally ignorant’ voters. It commends constitutional constraints to restrict the range of policy options open to representatives. By contrast, a ‘transactions costs’ approach suggests that electoral competition can offer protection when voters rely on ‘party signal’ as a low cost information source. If voters reduce transactions costs by relying on party signal, politicians have an incentive to maintain party reputation. Representatives are more willing than might otherwise be anticipated to accept the need for regulation if this serves to protect reputation.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Jones & John Hudson, 2001. "Political Parties, Political Integrity and Public Policy: a ‘Transactions Costs’ Approach," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 49(1), pages 70-88, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:49:y:2001:i:1:p:70-88
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-9248.00303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00303
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-9248.00303?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Franklin G. Mixon Jr., 2005. "Weather and the Salem Witch Trials: Comments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(1), pages 241-242, Winter.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:49:y:2001:i:1:p:70-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.