Abstract
According to reputational models of Political Economy, a term limit may change the behavior of a chief executive because he does not have to stand for election. We use a dynamic panel data estimation strategy to test this hypothesis in a sample of 52 countries over the period 1977–2000, using social and welfare spending and surplus as policy variables. We are unable to find significant differences between the fiscal policies of term-limited chief executives and other types of government, while when we look at presidential systems only, lame ducks appear to be more likely to cut public spending. This contrasts with previous empirical results based on US states and international data.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
