To elect or to appoint? Bias, information, and responsiveness of bureaucrats and politicians
Publication Year
2013
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
In this paper, we address empirically the trade-offs involved in choosing between bureaucrats and politicians. In order to do this, we map institutions of selection and retention of public officials to the type of public officials they induce. We do this by specifying a collective decision-making model, and exploiting its equilibrium information to obtain estimates of the unobservable types. We focus on criminal decisions across US states' Supreme Courts. We find that justices that are shielded from voters' influence ("bureaucrats") on average (i) have better information, (ii) are more likely to change their preconceived opinions about a case, and (iii) are more effective (make less mistakes) than their elected counterparts ("politicians"). We evaluate how performance would change if the courts replaced majority rule with unanimity rule. © 2012 Elsevier B.V.
Journal
Journal of Public Economics
Volume
97
Pages
230–244
ISSN Number
00472727
ISBN
00472727
PMID
1355406