IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/pubeco/v225y2023ics0047272723001433.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Where does opportunity knock? On doors that voted for the executive

Author

Listed:
  • Shelton, Cameron A.

Abstract

The Trump Tax Bill of 2017 gave U.S. state governors a one-time opportunity to select an exogenously fixed number of census tracts for preferential tax treatment. We model a governors’ choice of tracts to maximize competing goals of mobilizing voters, rewarding co-partisan legislators, and alleviating poverty. We estimate the likelihood that an eligible tract is selected as a function of both the economic characteristics of the tract and the political characteristics of the governor and the relevant state and federal legislators. Our results show that the executive accountability engendered by eligibility for reelection is weakened by the dual constituency hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Shelton, Cameron A., 2023. "Where does opportunity knock? On doors that voted for the executive," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:pubeco:v:225:y:2023:i:c:s0047272723001433
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.104961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272723001433
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.104961?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kriner, Douglas L. & Reeves, Andrew, 2015. "Presidential Particularism and Divide-the-Dollar Politics—CORRIGENDUM," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(3), pages 637-637, August.
    2. Stephan Schneider & Sven Kunze, 2021. "Disastrous Discretion: Ambiguous Decision Situations Foster Political Favoritism," KOF Working papers 21-491, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    3. Alain de Janvry & Frederico Finan & Elisabeth Sadoulet, 2012. "Local Electoral Incentives and Decentralized Program Performance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(3), pages 672-685, August.
    4. Torsten Persson & Gérard Roland & Guido Tabellini, 1997. "Separation of Powers and Political Accountability," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(4), pages 1163-1202.
    5. Chris Boone & Arindrajit Dube & Ethan Kaplan, 2014. "The Political Economy of Discretionary Spending: Evidence from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 45(1 (Spring), pages 375-441.
    6. Chris Boone & Arindrajit Dube & Ethan Kaplan, 2014. "The Political Economy of Discretionary Spending: Evidence from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 48(1 (Spring), pages 375-441.
    7. Eric Brunner & Stephen L. Ross & Ebonya Washington, 2013. "Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 53-76, May.
    8. Timothy Besley & Anne Case, 1995. "Does Electoral Accountability Affect Economic Policy Choices? Evidence from Gubernatorial Term Limits," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 769-798.
    9. Levitt, Steven D, 1996. "How Do Senators Vote? Disentangling the Role of Voter Preferences, Party Affiliation, and Senate Ideology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 425-441, June.
    10. Claudio Ferraz & Frederico Finan, 2011. "Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local Governments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1274-1311, June.
    11. Kriner, Douglas L. & Reeves, Andrew, 2015. "Presidential Particularism and Divide-the-Dollar Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(1), pages 155-171, February.
    12. Berry, Christopher R. & Burden, Barry C. & Howell, William G., 2010. "The President and the Distribution of Federal Spending," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(4), pages 783-799, November.
    13. David N. Figlio, 1995. "The Effect of Retirement On Political Shirking: Evidence From Congressional Voting," Public Finance Review, , vol. 23(2), pages 226-241, April.
    14. Atif Mian & Amir Sufi & Francesco Trebbi, 2010. "The Political Economy of the US Mortgage Default Crisis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 1967-1998, December.
    15. Dynes, Adam M. & Huber, Gregory A., 2015. "Partisanship and the Allocation of Federal Spending: Do Same-Party Legislators or Voters Benefit from Shared Party Affiliation with the President and House Majority?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(1), pages 172-186, February.
    16. Glick, David & Palmer, Maxwell, 2022. "County Over Party: How Governors Prioritized Geography Not Particularism in the Distribution of Opportunity Zones," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 1902-1910, October.
    17. Kriner, Douglas L. & Reeves, Andrew, 2012. "The Influence of Federal Spending on Presidential Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 348-366, May.
    18. Kira Fuchs & Florian Herold, 2011. "The Costs and Benefits of a Separation of Powers--An Incomplete Contracts Approach," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 13(1), pages 131-167.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    2. Stephan Schneider & Sven Kunze, 2021. "Disastrous Discretion: Ambiguous Decision Situations Foster Political Favoritism," KOF Working papers 21-491, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    3. Yaniv Reingewertz & Thushyanthan Baskaran, 2020. "Distributive spending and presidential partisan politics," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 65-85, October.
    4. Markus Reischmann, 2016. "Empirical Studies on Public Debt and Fiscal Transfers," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 63.
    5. Garance Genicot & Laurent Bouton & Micael Castanheira, 2021. "Electoral Systems and Inequalities in Government Interventions [“Distributive Politics and Electoral Incentives: Evidence from Seven US State Legislatures.”]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(6), pages 3154-3206.
    6. Roberto Brunetti & Matthieu Pourieux, 2023. "Representative Policy-Makers? A Behavioral Experiment with French Politicians," Working Papers 2319, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    7. Cooper, Zack & Kowalski, Amanda & Powell, Eleanor Neff & Wu, Jennifer D., 2024. "Politics and health care spending in the United States: A case study from the passage of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    8. George Ward, 2015. "Is Happiness a Predictor of Election Results?," CEP Discussion Papers dp1343, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    9. Jason DeBacker, 2012. "Political parties and political shirking," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 651-670, March.
    10. David Stadelmann & Marco Portmann & Reiner Eichenberger, 2012. "Do Female Representatives Adhere More Closely to Citizens’ Preferences Than Male Representatives?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2012-02, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    11. Andreas Bernecker & Pierre C. Boyer & Christina Gathmann, 2021. "The Role of Electoral Incentives for Policy Innovation: Evidence from the US Welfare Reform," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 26-57, May.
    12. Chauvin, Juan Pablo & Tricaud, Clemence, 2022. "Gender and Electoral Incentives: Evidence from Crisis Response," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 12411, Inter-American Development Bank.
    13. Eric Avis & Claudio Ferraz & Frederico Finan, 2018. "Do Government Audits Reduce Corruption? Estimating the Impacts of Exposing Corrupt Politicians," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(5), pages 1912-1964.
    14. Ward, George, 2015. "Is happiness a predictor of election results?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 61698, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Mariana Lopes da Fonseca, 2016. "Candid Lame Ducks," CESifo Working Paper Series 5773, CESifo.
    16. Eric Brunner & Stephen L. Ross & Ebonya Washington, 2013. "Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 53-76, May.
    17. Schelker, Mark, 2018. "Lame ducks and divided government: How voters control the unaccountable," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 131-144.
    18. Eoin F. McGuirk & Nathaniel Hilger & Nicholas Miller, 2023. "No Kin in the Game: Moral Hazard and War in the US Congress," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(9), pages 2370-2401.
    19. Orkun Saka & Yuemei Ji & Paul De Grauwe, 2021. "Financial Policymaking after Crises: Public vs. Private Interests," CESifo Working Paper Series 9131, CESifo.
    20. Eicher, Theo S. & García-Peñalosa, Cecilia & Kuenzel, David J., 2018. "Constitutional rules as determinants of social infrastructure," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 182-209.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Opportunity zones; Dual constituency hypothesis;

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • H25 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Business Taxes and Subsidies

    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:eee:pubeco:v:225:y:2023:i:c:s0047272723001433. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505578 .

    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.