IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v7y2019i10p998-d278679.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bureaucratic Reshuffling and Efficiency: Do n-Competing Bureaus Determine Inefficient Results?

Author

Listed:
  • Elton Beqiraj

    (Dipartimento di Economia e diritto, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy)

  • Silvia Fedeli

    (Dipartimento di Economia e diritto, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy)

  • Massimiliano Tancioni

    (Dipartimento di Economia e diritto, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

Governments often support their preferences for decentralised (centralised) bureaucracies on the grounds of efficiency considerations (production side). Here, we consider the demand side, i.e., whether the government perception of citizens’ demand for differentiated goods/services might increase efficiency by simply reshuffling bureaucratic production activities. We represent the budgetary process—between an incumbent governing party and n-competing bureaus producing differentiated goods/services—as a simultaneous Nash-compliance game with complete information. On these grounds, we analyse—in terms of public production, players’ rents and payoffs—the effects of increasing competition (as for the number of bureaus) in the political–bureaucratic market. Moreover, we evaluate, ceteris paribus , the effects of bureaucratic reshuffling from the point of view of society, assumed to prefer those policies that approximate social efficiency by minimising bureaucratic and political rents.

Suggested Citation

  • Elton Beqiraj & Silvia Fedeli & Massimiliano Tancioni, 2019. "Bureaucratic Reshuffling and Efficiency: Do n-Competing Bureaus Determine Inefficient Results?," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-12, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:7:y:2019:i:10:p:998-:d:278679
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/7/10/998/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/7/10/998/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary Miller, 1977. "Bureaucratic compliance as a game on the unit square," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 37-51, March.
    2. Martin Gaynor & Kate Ho & Robert J. Town, 2015. "The Industrial Organization of Health-Care Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 53(2), pages 235-284, June.
    3. Janssen, Richard T J M & Leers, Theo & Meijdam, Lex C. & Verbon, Harrie, 2003. "Bureaucracy Versus Markets in Hospital Care: The Dutch Case," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 114(3-4), pages 477-489, March.
    4. Laurie Bates & Becky Lafrancois & Rexford Santerre, 2011. "An empirical study of the consolidation of local public health services in Connecticut," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 107-121, April.
    5. Fedeli, Silvia, 1999. "Competing Bureaus and Politicians: A Compliance Approach to the Diversion of Public Funds," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 100(3-4), pages 253-270, September.
    6. Breton, Albert & Wintrobe, Ronald, 1975. "The Equilibrium Size of a Budget-maximizing Bureau: A Note on Niskanen's Theory of Bureaucracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(1), pages 195-207, February.
    7. Avinash Dixit, 1979. "A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 20-32, Spring.
    8. Bagnoli, Mark & McKee, Michael, 1991. "Controlling the Game: Political Sponsors and Bureaus," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 229-247, Fall.
    9. Allan Collard-Wexler & Gautam Gowrisankaran & Robin S. Lee, 2019. ""Nash-in-Nash" Bargaining: A Microfoundation for Applied Work," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(1), pages 163-195.
    10. Miller, Gary J. & Moe, Terry M., 1983. "Bureaucrats, Legislators, and the Size of Government," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(2), pages 297-322, June.
    11. Fedeli, Silvia, 1997. "Politicians and Public Managers: Strategic Interactions and the Settlement of Residual Claims to Public Resources," Public Finance = Finances publiques, , vol. 52(3-4), pages 341-366.
    12. Goodwin, Neil, 2000. "Leadership and the UK health service," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 49-60, February.
    13. Johns, Leslie, 2007. "A Servant of Two Masters: Communication and the Selection of International Bureaucrats," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(2), pages 245-275, April.
    14. Silvia Fedeli & Leone Leonida & Michele Santoni, 2018. "Bureaucratic institutional design: the case of the Italian NHS," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 265-285, December.
    15. Robert Mackay & Carolyn Weaver, 1981. "Agenda control by budget maximizers in a multi-bureau setting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 447-472, January.
    16. Nirvikar Singh & Xavier Vives, 1984. "Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 546-554, Winter.
    17. George France & Francesco Taroni & Andrea Donatini, 2005. "The Italian health‐care system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(S1), pages 187-202, September.
    18. Silvia Fedeli & Michele Santoni, 2006. "The Government's Choice of Bureaucratic Organisation: An Application to Italian State Museums," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 30(1), pages 41-72, March.
    19. Sean Gailmard & John W. Patty, 2007. "Slackers and Zealots: Civil Service, Policy Discretion, and Bureaucratic Expertise," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 873-889, October.
    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. Silvia Fedeli & Leone Leonida & Michele Santoni, 2018. "Bureaucratic institutional design: the case of the Italian NHS," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 265-285, December.
    2. Silvia Fedeli & Michele Santoni, 2001. "Endogenous institutions in bureaucratic compliance games," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 203-229, November.
    3. Samarth Vaidya, 2004. "Bureaucratic Provision: Influencing vs. Lying," Econometric Society 2004 Australasian Meetings 251, Econometric Society.
    4. Samarth Vaidya, 2009. "Influencing The Public And Efficiency In Bureaucratic Provision," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 259-274, May.
    5. Krzysztof Kosiec, 2016. "Liberalisation of International Trade – The Case of Asymmetric Countries," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 8(3), pages 143-160, September.
    6. Emmanuel Petrakis & Panagiotis Skartados, 2022. "Vertical Opportunism, Bargaining, and Share-Based Agreements," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 60(4), pages 549-565, June.
    7. Fanti, Luciano, 2013. "Cross-ownership and unions in a Cournot duopoly: When profits reduce with horizontal product differentiation," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-40.
    8. Emanuele Bacchiega & Olivier Bonroy & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2018. "Contract contingency in vertically related markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 772-791, October.
    9. Allain, Marie-Laure & Avignon, Rémi & Chambolle, Claire, 2020. "Purchasing alliances and product variety," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    10. Buccella, Domenico & Fanti, Luciano & Gori, Luca, 2021. "A contribution to the theory of R&D investments," GLO Discussion Paper Series 940, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    11. Haiyang Xia, 2021. "Price and quantity competition in a differentiated duopoly with heterogeneous beliefs," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 89(1), pages 46-69, January.
    12. Min, Taeki & Kim, Sang Yong & Shin, Changhoon & Hahn, Minhi, 2002. "Competitive nonlinear pricing with product differentiation," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 155-173, May.
    13. Benoît Le Maux, 2009. "Governmental behavior in representative democracy: a synthesis of the theoretical literature," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 141(3), pages 447-465, December.
    14. Ciprian Rusescu & Mihai Daniel - Roman, 2021. "Dynamic Behaviour In A Bertrand Model With Bounded Rational Players," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 3, pages 45-55, June.
    15. Fanti, Luciano & Buccella, Domenico, 2018. "Corporate social responsibility and the choice of price versus quantities," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 71-78.
    16. Toshihiro Matsumura & Akira Ogawa, 2014. "Corporate Social Responsibility or Payoff Asymmetry? A Study of an Endogenous Timing Game," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 81(2), pages 457-473, October.
    17. Sophie Bienenstock, 2016. "Consumer education: why the market doesn’t work," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 237-262, October.
    18. Sang-Ho Lee & Sang-Ha Park, 2005. "Tradable Emission Permits Regulations: The Role of Product Differentiation," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 4(3), pages 249-261, December.
    19. Arghya Ghosh & Manipushpak Mitra & Bibhas Saha, 2015. "Privatization, Underpricing, and Welfare in the Presence of Foreign Competition," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(3), pages 433-460, June.
    20. Nakamura, Yasuhiko, 2019. "Combining the endogenous choice of the timing of setting incentive parameters and the contents of strategic contracts in a managerial mixed duopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 207-233.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:7:y:2019:i:10:p:998-:d:278679. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.