Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 511

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Voting on the Budget Deficit

Open access
Alesina, Alberto, Tabellini, Guido·1988·National Bureau of Economic Research

Abstract

This paper analyzes a model in which different rational individuals vote over the composition and time profile of public spending.Potential disagreement between current and future majorities generates instability in the social choice function that aggregates individual preferences.In equilibrium a majority of the voters may favor a budget deficit.The size of the deficit under majority rule tends to be larger the greater is the polarization between current and potential future majorities.The paper also shows that the ex-ante efficient equilibrium of this model involves a balanced budget.A balanced budget amendment, however, is not durable under majority rule.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3386/w2759

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 511

Metadata

Authors
Alesina, A., & Tabellini, G.
Venue
National Bureau of Economic Research
Published
1988-11
OpenAlex
W2979402405
Cited by
511
References
0
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Voting on the Budget Deficit. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3386/w2759
The paper
Alesina, A., & Tabellini, G. (1988). Voting on the Budget Deficit. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w2759

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.