Existing arguments suggest parties use domestic and international institutions to lock in policy preferences by restricting successors. This paper argues that these views overlook the incentives of office-seeking parties.
Core Argument:
There's a tension between implementing policy commitments after winning office and strategically exploiting partisan differences ahead of elections. Locking in policies prevents future debates but hinders electoral success.
Policy Example: Independent Central Banks (ICBs)
This trade-off is explored through the lens of ICB establishment, where parties commit to strict monetary policy rules.
Key Finding: Office-seeking parties have a disincentive for tying successors' hands because it undermines their ability to leverage partisan differences in future elections. This "this means that" style finding suggests traditional institutional locking arguments are incomplete.
| The Electoral Costs of Policy Commitments was authored by Timm Betz. It was published by Cambridge in PSR&M in 2020. |
