Lobbying Is a Biologically Necessary Transaction Cost in a Democracy
- 1 University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA
- 2 Financial Supervisory Service, Government of Korea, Seoul, South Korea
Abstract
We explain why lobbying is a biologically necessary transaction cost in a democracy. We use lobbying for trade protection to illustrate because we have controls for other effects by using the Young and Magee [2] general equilibrium international trade model with 2 goods, 2 factors, 2 lobbies and 2 political parties, all maximizing in a game theoretic equilibrium. Our empirical estimates show that protectionist lobbying costs are low: 0.8 of one percent in our advanced countries and 0.2 of one percent for the US. There are political economy explanations for lobbying and corruption: money creates power and power creates money. There are biological explanations for lobbying: humans are carnivores and compete for power like animals in dominance hierarchies. Using both explanations, competitive lobbying is an equilibrium outcome. Our data focus on capital intensive exports compared to import-competing industries in 8 non-EC OECD countries in 1965 and 1986 and factor intensities of production from wage and capital earnings in 3-digit level ISIC data.
- Magee, S., Brock, W. and Young, L. (1989) Black Hole Tariffs and Endogenous Policy Theory: Political Economy in General Equilibrium. Cambridge University Press, New York.
- Young, L. and Magee, S. (1986) Endogenous Protection, Factor Returns and Resource Allocation. Review of Economic Studies, 53, 407-419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297636
- Magee, C. and Magee, S. (2004) The Madison Paradox and the Low Cost of Special-Interest Legislation. In: Nelson, D., Ed., The Political Economy of Policy Reform, Elsevier, New York, 131-154.
- Magee, S. (1993) Bioeconomics and the Survival Model: The Economic Lessons of Evolutionary Biology. Public Choice, 77, 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01049225
- Dorfman, S.S. (1958) Efficient Programs of Capital Accumulation. In: Linear Programming and Economic Analysis, McGraw Hill, New York, 331.
- Tullock, G. (1967) The Welfare Cost of Tariffs, Monopolies and Theft. Western Economic Journal, 5, 224-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1967.tb01923.x
- Krueger, A. (1974) The Political Economy of the Rent Seeking Society. American Economic Review, 64, 291-303.
- Brock, W. and Magee, S. (1978) The Economics of Special Interest Politics: The Case of the Tariff. American Economic Review, 68, 246-250.
- Magee, C. and Magee, S. (203) The Effects of Rent Seeking on Economic Development: An Increasing Divergence Between Rich and Poor Countries? In: Ramaswamy, S. and Cason, J.W., Eds., Development and Democracy, Middlebury College Press, Hanover, 123-144.
- Becker, G. (1983) A Theory of Competition among Pressure Groups for Political Influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 371-400. https://doi.org/10.2307/1886017
- Wittman, D.A. (1989) Why Democracies Produce Efficient Results. Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1395-1422. https://doi.org/10.1086/261660
- Barrow, R. (1999) The Determinants If Democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 107, 158-183. https://doi.org/10.1086/250107
- United Nations (1971) Classification of Commodities by Industrial Origin: Links between the Standard International Trade Classification and the International Standard Industrial Classification, Stat. Papers Series M, No. 43, Rev. 1.
- Mitchell, B.R. (1992) a. International Historical Statistics, Europe, 1750-1988, Stockton. b. International Historical Statistics—The Americas, Stockton. c. International Historical Statistics: Africa, Asia and Oceania, 1750-1988. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12791-7