Economics of National Elections
Md. Joynal Abdin
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Trade & Investment Bangladesh (T&IB)
Editor, T&IB Business Directory; Executive Director, Online Training Academy (OTA)
Secretary General, Brazil Bangladesh Chamber of Commerce & Industry (BBCCI)
Executive Summary: National elections profoundly shape macroeconomic policy and outcomes. Theoretical models (Nordhaus 1975; Rogoff 1990; Persson & Tabellini 2000) predict that incumbents may manipulate fiscal and monetary policies to influence votes, trading short-run gains for long-run costs. Empirically, however, clear pre-election booms in GDP growth are elusive[1][2]. Instead, scholars document political budget cycles: incumbents boost spending or cut taxes before elections (raising deficits by ~0.3–1.0 percentage point of GDP)[3][4], often reversing only partially afterward (cutting investment or raising taxes)[4][5]. In developing and new democracies these effects are strongest; in advanced economies with strong institutions and informed voters, cycles are weaker[3][6].
Monetary policy tends to remain independent in mature economies, though political pressure for loosening may rise pre-election. Financial markets typically price in election uncertainty: implied volatility often spikes around election days (as seen, for example, in the U.S. VIX) and emerging-market capital inflows temporarily fall[7]. In the short run, elections can cause swings in spending, deficits, and asset prices; if not managed by fiscal rules or credible targets, these swings can add debt burdens and inflationary pressure. Distributional effects can be large (e.g. targeted “pork-barrel” transfers or tax concessions to key constituencies) and may exacerbate inequality if political patronage dominates broad-based investment. Misinformation, campaign finance abuses, and weak data complicate analysis.
Key Findings: (1) Incumbents face a motivated electorate and often pursue expansionary fiscal policies just before elections – raising social transfers, public wages, or targeted subsidies – because voters reward short-term consumption over long-run solvency[8][3]. (2) These “political budget cycles” enlarge deficits (on average +0.3–1.0% GDP in election years[2][4]) and are only partly unwound afterwards. (3) Independent central banks and fiscal rules can blunt these cycles, but less so in countries with weak institutions[9][10]. (4) Financial markets often become more volatile around elections, and investors may demand higher risk premia or pull back capital ahead of uncertain outcomes[7]. (5) Case studies (U.S., UK, India, Brazil, Nigeria, Mexico, etc.) show election-year spending surges and post-election austerity in many countries. (6) Empirically, researchers use event studies and panel regressions to isolate election effects; a recent IMF analysis finds that an election year raises deficits by ~0.3 percentage point of GDP on average[2]. (7) Inequality concerns arise when vote-driven spending favors specific groups (e.g. rural voters, public-sector employees), but systematic studies of distributional outcomes are scarce. (8) Policy implications: To mitigate political cycles, countries are advised to strengthen budget institutions (fiscal rules, independent audit or fiscal councils, multi-year budgeting), insulate central banks, enhance election transparency, and require pre-election budget certification by independent bodies[9][10]. Preparing citizens with factual information and imposing campaign finance limits can reduce opportunistic interventions.
The remainder of this article reviews the theory and evidence in depth, presents recent data, and draws lessons for policymakers. A mermaid timeline of a typical election-year policy cycle is shown below:
timeline
title Election-Year Economic Timeline
12 months pre-election : Government forecasts economic conditions; prepares budget
6 months pre-election : Incumbent announces stimulus (tax cuts, spending hikes)
3 months pre-election : Public debates economic records; central bank meeting pre-scheduled
Election Day : Heightened uncertainty; markets and currency often more volatile
3 months post-election: New budget and policies take effect; fiscal adjustment begins
6 months post-election: Economic policies normalize; any campaign promises are implemented
Theoretical Frameworks
The political business cycle (PBC) literature posits that election timing and government policies interact. In the classic opportunistic model (Nordhaus 1975), a fixed-term incumbent with voters who value growth over inflation will stimulate the economy (via easy money or fiscal expansion) just before elections to win votes[8]. Partisan models (Downs 1957; Hibbs 1977) add that parties have different policy platforms (e.g. “left-wing” parties favor employment, “right-wing” favor low inflation) so policy swings reflect the ideological tilt[8]. More recent rational-expectations theories (Rogoff & Sibert 1988; Rogoff 1990) allow that voters are forward-looking: politicians may still cut taxes or boost visible spending to signal competence, banking on voters’ imperfect information[11][12]. In these signaling models, only truly “competent” incumbents can afford large pre-election tax cuts without worrisome deficits[13].
A key insight is that not all election-related interventions target the aggregate economy: incumbents may steer benefits to swing constituencies (“pork barrel”) or shift spending toward visible projects[14][15]. For example, Drazen and Eslava (2010) model incumbents increasing school funding or road projects in competitive districts before an election to woo undecided voters. Hence, elections may alter the composition of fiscal policy (who gets spending or tax cuts) even if the total budget barely changes[14]. Voter preferences themselves drive the cycle: retrospective-voting assumes citizens reward good current performance, while prospective-voting models focus on party platforms and ideology (Lewis-Beck & Stegmaier 2000; Furceri et al. 2023). In practice, voters in many democracies have been shown to punish obvious fiscal manipulation (voters are often “fiscal conservatives”[16]) or simply rally around incumbents if growth is strong (perception of a “strong economy helps re-election”[17]).
Central bank independence moderates election effects: in advanced economies an independent monetary authority is unlikely to directly accommodate fiscal populism, so the PBC must operate through fiscal policy alone. In contrast, in some emerging or unstable democracies, governments may pressure central banks to lower interest rates pre-election (contributing to short-lived booms and later inflation). Empirical studies find that where central banks are less independent, real interest rates fall around elections (Drazen 2000; Villoresi 2015). Weaker institutions, shorter terms, and insecure incumbents amplify these incentives (Karl 1989; Shi & Svensson 2006).
Fiscal Policy Effects
Elections typically spur expansionary fiscal policy. Governments often increase spending on consumption and transfers, or enact tax cuts, during the campaign period. Evidence is strongest for developing and emerging economies. Empirical studies find that national elections raise fiscal deficits on average by about 0.3–1.0 percentage point of GDP[2][4]. For example, Shi and Svensson (2006) use a panel of 85 countries (1975–1995) to show primary deficits swell by ~1.0% of GDP in election years (especially in poor democracies)[18]. A World Bank analysis of 173 emerging and developing economies (1990–2020) similarly reports an election-year primary deficit jump of +0.6 pp GDP, with primary spending (mostly wages) up +0.5 pp[3]. An IMF study of 68 low-income countries (1990–2010) finds government consumption rises ~1.0% of GDP in election years, driving deficits up by about the same amount[4].
These expansions reflect a mix of targeted and broad measures. Governments may boost public-sector wages, pensions, or subsidies to swing regions, and delay revenue measures. The net result is higher spending and lower revenues just when voters are choosing. As the IMF Fiscal Monitor (2024) notes, election-year deficits exceed other years by ~0.3 pp on average[2], comprised roughly of +0.2 pp higher spending and –0.1 pp lower taxes (Figure 1.16, IMF)[2]. Consistent with targeted shifts, research finds that much of the additional spending is on visible items (schools, cash transfers, infrastructure projects) with little immediate boost to productivity[13][14].
After elections, fiscal policy often reverses only partly. The same IMF study observes that realized deficits exceed pre-election projections by ~0.4 pp GDP on average[19], implying significant “fiscal slippage.” Post-election, governments typically trim deficits by cutting public investment or raising taxes – but these adjustments tend to undercut only a fraction of the prior expansion[20][5]. For instance, the IMF working paper finds that two years after elections, trade taxes rise and investment spending falls, yet government consumption and deficits remain elevated[4]. Similarly, the World Bank analysis notes that while primary spending is pared after elections, this mainly occurs via capital expenditure cuts; deficits remain worse than pre-election levels[21]. In short, election-year looseness is often followed by a partial fiscal retrenchment (sometimes called a political budget cycle), but not a full return to baseline.
This cyclical pattern has long-run implications. Widening deficits and debt in election years can undermine fiscal sustainability. Unless offset by spending cuts or revenue increases later, fiscal slippages can push debt-to-GDP up; indeed, advanced economies held large deficits through the 2010s partly because governments rarely reversed pre-election spending fully[22][10]. Such volatility – fiscally expansionary one year, corrective the next – may “create uncertainty about future fiscal credibility and macro stability”[10]. In some countries, elections have been followed by credit rating downgrades when markets feared fiscal profligacy.
Table 1 illustrates typical fiscal swings around elections, based on pooled studies. It highlights average changes in deficits and spending in the election year and adjustment thereafter:
| Study / Group | Election-Year Deficit Change (pp GDP) | Government Spending Change | Post-Election Adjustment | Source |
| 68 LICs (1990–2010) | +1.0 (gov’t consumption↑)[4] | +1.0 pp (↑ consumption) | Higher trade taxes, cuts in investment[4] | IMF Working Paper 2013 |
| 173 EMDEs (1990–2020) | +0.6 (primary deficit↑)[3] | +0.5 pp (↑ wages, subsidies) | Partially unwound (mainly capital spending cuts)[23] | World Bank Study 2020 |
| IMF Global Sample (1990–2020) | +0.3[2] | +0.2 (spending); –0.1 (revenue) | Fiscal outturns > forecasts by +0.4[19] | IMF Fiscal Monitor 2024 |
Table 1: Pooled election-cycle fiscal effects. For example, low-income countries see government consumption and deficits spike ~1 pp of GDP in election years[4]. Emerging markets on average raise deficits ~0.6 pp via higher primary spending[3]. Global estimates (IMF) find a +0.3 pp average deficit gap, reflecting both extra spending (+0.2 pp) and revenue shortfalls (–0.1 pp)[2]. Subsequent “bailouts” are incomplete – deficits remain above trend.
Monetary Policy and Central Bank Independence
Monetary policy interacts with election cycles in subtle ways. In democracies with strong central bank (CB) independence, electoral cycles operate mainly through fiscal channels; the CB maintains its inflation objective even if fiscal loosening occurs. However, in some contexts incumbents subtly influence monetary policy before elections. Studies (e.g. Alesina et al. 1997; Villoresi 2015) find that countries with weaker de facto independence may see temporary interest-rate cuts or higher money growth pre-election, feeding credit booms. For example, research on U.S. presidential cycles shows some Fed bias toward easier policy in incumbency years (controversially debated). More systematically, Drazen (2000) and others argue that if central bankers wish to curry favor with the ruling party, they may ease policy even absent legislative change.
Cross-country data suggest greater independence dampens electoral cycles. Central banks insulated from political pressure tend to hold real rates higher around elections, offsetting fiscal loosening. Conversely, in emerging markets where CBs are nominally independent but practice less so, election-year inflation often ticks up (e.g. Romania, Turkey have eased rates before votes). Scholarly consensus is that legally binding independence (as in Western Europe) has significantly reduced fiscal-inflation tradeoffs around elections[24][8]. When central banks are credible, voters demand sound money; politicians face higher political costs for obvious monetary inflation, reinforcing the “voter fiscal conservatism” theme[16].
Modern campaigns also promise disinflationary tax cuts or populist fiscal measures (e.g. subsidies). Central banks may then respond with precautionary tightening. The net impact on macro variables depends on the initial stance: if policy was tight, election-year demand stimulus might produce only temporary output gains. Overall, while theoretical models allow for monetary-cum-fiscal election cycles, empirical findings (especially in advanced economies) emphasize fiscal policy as the main instrument of electoral manipulation.
Financial Markets and Asset Prices
Elections introduce uncertainty that financial markets immediately price in. Prior to elections, stock prices may decline slightly (risk premium ↑) and volatility indices (e.g. VIX in the U.S.) often spike around the vote count or unexpected outcomes. A large event study of OECD countries finds that implied equity volatility tends to jump in weeks around major elections (especially if outcomes are unpredictable)[7]. Similarly, government bond yields in emerging markets often rise modestly if fiscal slippage is anticipated, reflecting risk of future debt increases. Currency markets can react sharply to surprise results: for instance, a pro-market candidate winning may strengthen the currency (as seen in the 2016 Philippine or 2017 U.S. elections), while a populist victory may temporarily weaken it.
IMF research (“Elections Matter”, 2025) documents that election periods are associated with a short-term outflow of capital from emerging economies. Using quarterly flow data for 38 EMs, it shows that net private inflows (equity and debt) dip significantly around elections, and remain subdued if policy uncertainty extends post-election[7]. Factors include investors delaying commitments until new policies are clear. Conversely, political stability and strong institutions mitigate this pullback[25]. In practice, stock-market performance around elections varies by context: safe policies bring relief, whereas volatile outcomes (e.g. hung parliaments) can trigger steep sell-offs. Notably, although US presidential elections are famous, many studies find equity cycles around them are weak and dominated by global shocks (2016 and 2020 showed only temporary volatility spikes). Emerging markets exhibit somewhat larger effects: e.g. studies of Latin American elections (Mexico 2018, Brazil 2018) report notable equity and bond yield volatility when election results were unexpected.
Figure 1 (below) illustrates a hypothetical volatility spike in a generic stock market index around an election day. Empirical charts show that such spikes are common across country cases: for example, the US VIX index reached ~30 on some 2016 election nights, and has shown recurring election-related jump (2020 also saw big movements). The risk is that election-driven volatility can feed into real activity if firms postpone investment or consumers hold back spending during uncertainty.
[2][7] Fig.1 Hypothetical stock market volatility (e.g. S&P500 VIX index) around an election. Real-world data show implied volatility often peaks on or just after election day, then gradually subsides (e.g. US 2016, 2020).
Trade, FDI, and Macroeconomic Indicators
Elections can indirectly affect trade, foreign investment, and broad indicators like growth and unemployment. Policy uncertainty may delay business investment and hiring: surveys (e.g. World Bank Enterprise Surveys) sometimes note that firms temporarily refrain from expansion in pre-electoral periods. In a cross-country panel, Baker et al. (2016) find that policy uncertainty indices rise near elections and are linked to a small short-run drag on GDP growth and investment. Financial constraints may tighten if lenders see fiscal slippage risk. However, any growth slowdown is often transitory: once elections conclude, activity usually rebounds if economic fundamentals are sound.
Internationally, political cycles can cause cyclical flows of trade and capital. For example, if a new administration implements protectionist rhetoric, import tariffs might be threatened (as in the lead-up to some US elections), affecting trade volumes. FDI may pause as investor strategy shifts with expected policy changes (though quantitative evidence is limited). Research on capital flows (IMF 2025) shows both portfolio and direct investments tend to slow around EM elections[7]. On macro indicators: unemployment and inflation often show little consistent pattern tied to elections, since job markets respond slowly. If incumbent policies create artificial booms, inflation may tick up temporarily. Overall, empirical studies emphasize that most election effects concentrate on fiscal variables and asset prices, with smaller measurable effects on GDP growth or employment.
Short-Term vs. Long-Term Impacts
Election-driven policies often boost short-term consumption at the cost of future strain. In the short run, incumbents may pull forward public spending (or delay taxes), giving a modest cyclical lift. Empirical studies of “event years” generally find small upticks in growth in the immediate pre-election period (if any)[26], but these effects vanish in pooled regressions. Long-term impacts are more ambiguous: if elections induce persistent deficits, debt burdens rise, limiting room for counter-cyclical policy in future downturns. Alternatively, if elections usher in new leadership, long-term policy shifts (e.g. structural reforms or deregulation) might boost potential growth, offsetting any cycle effects. For example, Brazil’s post-2018 fiscal reforms could improve medium-term outlook, though they were not strictly election-driven.
Importantly, repeated electoral cycles can erode investor confidence: if markets expect each election to be followed by fiscal retrenchment, they price a political risk premium. Over decades, many countries have sought to constrain this through institutions (see below). From a theoretical perspective, the “long-term impact” of election cycles is captured in political-economy models: rational voters and parties may adjust their behavior over time, reducing the magnitude of cycles[27][1]. Indeed, the decline of the political business cycle in many mature democracies (relative to the 1960s–70s) is attributed to more informed voters and better data (removing informational asymmetries)[11][1].
Institutional Factors
Electoral systems and rules shape the political economy of elections. Parliamentary systems (with flexible election timing) allow incumbents to call early elections when the economy looks good; this can accentuate PBC effects (Hallerberg 2004). Fixed-term presidential systems (US, Mexico) limit timing discretion, often dampening cycles. Countries with runoff elections or coalition governments may see more policymaking lag, but still face end-of-term pressures. Term limits matter: in one-term systems (Mexico’s president), the incumbent’s horizon is fixed, potentially reducing opportunism, but also removing re-election accountability. Conversely, unlimited terms (as in many African governments) can produce weaker incentives for fiscal prudence both before and after elections.
Fiscal institutions and checks-and-balances are crucial. Strong fiscal rules (balanced-budget or debt ceilings) force candidates to internalize future costs of profligacy. The low-income country study found that fiscal rules and IMF programs significantly dampened election-year spending surges[28]. Likewise, independent fiscal councils or well-publicized budget plans can limit discretionary stuffing of budgets. Country case: after South Africa introduced a fiscal framework in the 2000s, its pre-election spending spikes became smaller (IMF reports). The World Bank study confirms that good institutions mitigate election fiscal cycles[9][10]. Also, a free press and vigilant civil society can expose manipulations (reducing voters’ tolerance for sleight-of-hand). In contrast, emerging democracies with weak governance see large cycles: e.g. several African countries (Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria) have clear election-year budget surges documented by researchers[29][4].
Case Studies
We now highlight six country examples (advanced and emerging) to illustrate diverse experiences. For each case, official data (IMF/World Bank reports, election commission releases) provide context:
- United States (2020 election): The 2020 U.S. election occurred amid COVID and fiscal stimulus ($6.6 trillion by end-2020). While mostly pandemic-driven, CBO data show the federal deficit jumped to ~15% GDP in FY2020 (versus 4.6% in 2019), largely due to stimulus checks and unemployment support. Election-year stimulus (CARES Act) was passed in March before election season, arguably to shore up consumer incomes. Stock markets, after a steep 2020 decline in March, rallied into Election Day, with VIX spiking above 35 on Election Night (reflecting uncertainty) and then normalizing. Research indicates the Democratic win (November 2020) had modest effect on long-term yields (blunting growth concerns) but had clear short-run market volatility.
- United Kingdom (2019 general election): Prime Minister Johnson’s Conservative Party won a majority on a pledge to “Get Brexit Done.” Public spending promises were modest, but the fiscal outlook changed after the election: sterling appreciated (~3%) on a more certain Brexit path, while long-term bond yields fell slightly (less risk premium). Fiscal data show UK public debt peaked in 2020 due to COVID, but the pre-election Conservative manifesto had projected a small deficit in 2019; post-election, new fiscal targets were set (the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2023) partly to constrain spending cycles.
- India (2019 general election): The incumbent BJP pursued an expansionary stance with promises of farm debt relief and income support. In 2018-19 (pre-election FY), Indian fiscal deficit rose to 6.6% of GDP (versus 6.4% previous year). The Reserve Bank kept rates on hold, prioritizing inflation, but nonetheless liquidity injections continued. After the BJP’s victory, the 2019 budget introduced major tax cuts (GST rate reductions) and spending hikes. The rupee remained relatively stable around the election, though bond yields rose ~30 basis points anticipating fiscal looseness. Investment data show a slight slowdown in 2019 as global conditions eased, but GDP growth held ~5% pre-COVID. By 2024, India’s growth remained above peer averages, but public debt reached ~80% of GDP (IMF data). Analyses (World Bank India report 2020) note that election cycles contributed to cyclical fiscal swings.
- Brazil (2022 presidential election): Pre-2022, under Bolsonaro, Congress passed large social spending bills (emergency aid) to combat poverty (in part before elections). The budget deficit in 2021 was ~10% of GDP. In the run-up to October 2022 vote, major party candidates proposed welfare expansions. The Central Bank of Brazil raised its Selic rate aggressively before and after the election to tame inflation (hovering ~11%). Markets were volatile: the real depreciated ~15% as contenders like Lula da Silva posed tax increases on wealthy sectors. After Lula’s win, the government froze spending but agreed new fiscal rules to prevent debt soaring. IMF reports (Article IV, 2023) note that election-year transfers (auxilio) added ~2% GDP to spending, with post-election pressures to consolidate.
- Nigeria (2023 presidential election): Pre-election spending spiked as parties increased campaign subsidies for supporters. Official data: Nigeria’s fiscal deficit hit ~5.3% of GDP in 2022 (pre-election year), and actual spending exceeded budget by several percent. The naira weakened sharply in 2022-23 (50% depreciation), partly reflecting uncertainties and mix of fiscal loosening and forex restrictions. The Central Bank eventually floated the currency after the election to stem black market premiums. Empirical work (IMF Selected Issues 2023) links the post-election exchange-rate collapse to pre-election fiscal expansion and uncertain policies. Unemployment remained high (~33% in Q4 2022). After new leadership in May 2023, the government announced austerity measures (fuel subsidy removal) to stabilize finances, illustrating the common pattern of post-election retrenchment.
- Mexico (2018 general election): Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) won a majority with promises of welfare and pension boosts. Despite campaign rhetoric against debt, the Fiscal Transparency Law restricted new debt, limiting pork-barrel spending. The central bank (Banxico) remained independent, gradually easing rates into 2018. Mexico’s 2018 fiscal deficit actually fell to ~2.9% GDP (from 3.1% in 2017), aided by higher oil revenues; real GDP growth surprised upward in early 2018. Financial markets were calm: the peso saw only a brief dip at the August 2018 debate, then recovered. Some analysts attribute the muted cycle to Mexico’s fiscal rules (the expenditure cap) and Banxico’s inflation targeting, which constrained populist drives[28][9].
These cases illustrate diversity: in advanced democracies (UK, US, Mexico), institutions can blunt cycles, but promises still sway budgets. In emerging markets (India, Brazil, Nigeria), election-year fiscal looseness and volatility are more pronounced. Data sources include national budgets, IMF country reports, and election commission releases, which consistently show pre-electoral spending surges and only partial reversals.
Empirical Methods and Evidence
Scholars use various empirical techniques to study election economics. Event studies analyze high-frequency market reactions (e.g. stock returns in days around election announcements) to estimate immediate effects[7]. Panel regressions (Shi & Svensson 2006; Ebeke & Ölçer 2013; IMF 2025) examine cross-country data over decades, controlling for time trends and other shocks, to isolate the average “election effect” on fiscal variables or capital flows[3][2]. These often use Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) to address endogeneity of election timing. Difference-in-differences is used when natural experiments occur (e.g. fixed vs. early elections) to compare fiscal outcomes across treated/control groups. Synthetic controls and case-study narratives complement quantitative work by detailing particular country dynamics.
The evidence is broadly consistent: panel studies find higher deficits and spending in election years[2], especially where institutions are weak. Event studies show statistically significant but economically modest jumps in volatility and small risk premia adjustments around elections. Importantly, most econometric work finds little evidence of a sustained impact on real GDP or unemployment the traditional “macro PBC” hypothesis of booming output is largely unsupported[1][2]. Instead, fiscal and financial variables bear the brunt of electoral shifts.
These methods face challenges: identifying a “causal” election effect is tricky because elections are not random and often coincide with global trends. Researchers instrument for endogenous election timing (e.g. based on fixed terms) or focus on surprise outcomes. Data limitations are notable: many developing countries lack timely monthly fiscal data, so analysis uses annual figures. Moreover, separating campaign spending (often off-budget) from official budgets can be impossible. As a result, empirical estimates are likely lower bounds of the true political effect.
Distributional Effects and Inequality
Election policies often have distributional implications. When incumbents target spending to certain voter blocs (rural areas, public servants, pensioners), they may inadvertently exacerbate inequality or regional imbalances. For example, if subsidies are expanded only for the poor, this may reduce consumption inequality, but if government project funds flow disproportionately to well-off provinces (a patronage strategy), inequality may rise. The theoretical literature (Persson & Tabellini 2000; Drazen & Eslava 2010) suggests that democratic competition can favor policies benefitting median or swing voters, which in many contexts are low-income groups, but the reality depends on the clientelistic structure. Studies in Latin America show that pre-election transfers often flow to modest-income districts, whereas tax cuts may favor higher-income sectors (since wealthier voters have more tax liability to cut)[13].
Empirical work on inequality is scarce. However, anecdotal evidence abounds: e.g. in Kenya, election campaigns often promise education bursaries and rural roads (favoring poorer regions), whereas big infrastructure deals might benefit elites. Some scholars (Fatás & Mihov 2013) warn that political cycles can set back redistribution efforts if policies are short-lived. In the U.S., research finds that campaign tax promises (e.g. wealth taxes) would have targeted high earners, but Medicare expansions (voter-supported) favored the elderly across incomes. Overall, election-driven fiscal changes can both mitigate or worsen inequality depending on design; without earmarked compensations, they risk regressive outcomes if cutting social programs post-election.
Policy Recommendations
To mitigate adverse effects of election cycles, policymakers have several tools:
- Strengthen Fiscal Institutions: Enforce balanced-budget or debt rules; empower independent fiscal councils to evaluate budgets; require transparent, audited forecasts. Such rules make it harder for politicians to spend beyond official limits. The IMF and OECD advise (and countries have implemented) multi-year budget frameworks and ex-ante budgets that cannot be easily altered for political gain.
- Central Bank Credibility: Maintain clear monetary policy rules (inflation targeting, etc.) and protect CBs from political interference. A credible central bank can offset part of election-year stimulus through tighter policy if needed.
- Election Timing and Accountability: Fixed election dates (as in the US or EU) reduce opportunistic timing. Strict enforcement of campaign finance rules and disclosure of fiscal promises (e.g. costed manifestos) can expose unrealistic or hidden fiscal commitments.
- Social Safety Nets vs. Populism: Design automatic stabilizers (unemployment insurance, food subsidies) that function smoothly through election cycles, reducing the need for discretionary lures. By contrast, one-off pre-election transfers should be avoided. Linking benefits to objective criteria (e.g. poverty lines) prevents politicization.
- Voter Education and Transparency: Educating the electorate about public finance and highlighting the long-term costs of election-year deficits can increase political costs for opportunism. An informed voter base (supported by media and civil society) is a natural constraint on manipulation[9][10].
In practice, these measures have been adopted with varying success. For example, Brazil’s 2016 constitution amendment (tétcile fiscal) restricts spending growth, aiming to prevent election pork. The EU’s Stability and Growth Pact serves partly as a commitment device (though often evaded). The key policy message from the literature is that rules matter: countries with strong, credible fiscal frameworks exhibit far smaller election-driven fiscal swings[28][9].
Risks to Economic Stability and Investor Confidence
Election cycles can pose risks to macro stability. Large pre-election deficits and debts may trigger fiscal crises if markets lose confidence. For instance, the Argentine debt crisis (2018) was preceded by expansionary policies before the 2015 election, contributing to the eventual bailout. Rating agencies often watch election cycles: they may preemptively downgrade sovereign debt if an incoming government appears unsustainable. The IMF cautions (2024) that with a record 60 countries holding elections in 2024 (representing 55% of global GDP[30]), the cumulative risk of “fiscal slippage” is high[31]. If many governments simultaneously ease policy, global financial conditions could tighten (via higher interest rates or commodity prices), feeding back into slower growth.
For investors, elections increase policy uncertainty. Multinational companies may delay projects until policy clarity emerges. Bond markets may demand higher yields if significant tax cuts or spending increases are on the table. Currency risk rises, especially in countries with volatile political climates (as recent history in Turkey or Argentina shows). Sudden political events (such as coups or contested elections) obviously can lead to capital flight or economic sanction risks.
Conversely, elections can also stabilize expectations if they resolve uncertainty. A credible electoral outcome can clarify future policy and thus restore markets. For example, after the 2019 Ukrainian elections, bond yields fell when a pro-market president signaled reform continuity. The net risk depends on how well the election process is managed and whether new leaders commit to sound economics.
Misinformation, Campaign Finance, and Political Economy
Modern elections are also shaped by information flows. Misinformation campaigns (e.g. on social media) can distort voter perceptions of the economy (inflating perceived unemployment or crime rates). While not directly an economic channel, false narratives about the state of the economy can lead voters to reward incumbents undeservedly, or to choose fiscally irresponsible challengers. Recent studies (Brookings 2023) show that voters’ misperceptions about fiscal deficits or inflation can change policy outcomes. From an economic viewpoint, misinformation heightens uncertainty: if policy surprises are systematically unpredictable due to opaque promises, markets may price in an “uncertainty premium.”
Campaign financing also matters. The cost of elections can be enormous, especially in emerging democracies where incumbents divert public funds for campaigners or where illicit finance abounds. High campaign costs may force parties to favor certain industries or wealthy donors post-election, skewing economic policy (lobbying for protectionist measures, etc.). Economists warn that excessive campaign contributions and rent-seeking can dampen growth by distorting public goods provision (American Progress 2020). While comprehensive empirical links between campaign finance and macro outcomes are sparse, the logic is clear: opaque and unlimited campaign finance can incentivize policies that benefit donors rather than the public good, undermining economic efficiency.
Measurement Challenges and Data Limitations
Studying election economics faces data constraints. Government finance statistics are often annual and published with lags, making it hard to pinpoint election timing effects at high frequency. Off-budget election spending (like handing out goods or cash locally) is usually undocumented. Voter intention data and sentiment are seldom available in developing countries. This limits researchers to proxy elections by country-year dummies, potentially mismeasuring short-lived cycles.
Statistical issues also arise: elections are endogenous (governments may call early votes when conditions are favorable) and correlated with other shocks (commodity booms, global crises). Sophisticated econometrics (instrumental variables, fixed effects) help but cannot fully isolate causality. Moreover, small sample sizes (few years between elections) and structural breaks (changing party platforms) complicate inference. The IMF Fiscal Monitor notes that election-year deficits are 0.3 pp higher on average[2], but also acknowledges wide confidence intervals and variation across countries. In sum, the magnitude and mechanisms of election effects can vary, and our knowledge is limited by data quality and unobserved factors (media influence, social movements, etc.).
Conclusion
Elections are a central feature of democracy and inherently political events. The Economics of National Elections lies at the intersection of political science and macroeconomics: economic policy becomes a campaign tool, and economic outcomes become electoral payoffs. The literature, from Nordhaus (1975) onward, paints a nuanced picture: while voter demand for good macro performance is universal, the actual ability of governments to sway outcomes via macro policy is more constrained than popular wisdom suggests. Still, the evidence is clear that elections tilt fiscal policy towards short-term stimuluses, raising budget deficits and public debt. Monetary policy tends to be more stable in modern economies, but where institutions are weak it can join the cycle. Financial markets invariably watch elections warily, leading to temporary volatility or risk-premium shifts, particularly in emerging markets.
For policymakers, the message is two-fold. First, transparency and rules are vital. Countries that have fiscal laws, independent central banks, and strong accountability exhibit much smaller election-year distortions[9][10]. Second, leaders should prioritize sustainable policy even when campaigning: using credible long-term plans rather than one-off giveaways. Voters, in turn, benefit from understanding that cheap political successes today can translate into painful adjustments tomorrow.
Closing on empirical findings, the consensus is that robust institutions and an informed public can largely neutralize the sleight-of-hand associated with election economics. A well-functioning democracy channels electoral incentives through stable institutions so that the economy need not endure disruptive cycles. By heeding the lessons of recent research and statistics, countries can design political and economic systems that deliver both democratic legitimacy and economic stability in tandem.
Sources: We rely on academic and policy literature in political economy (Nordhaus 1975; Shi & Svensson 2006; Drazen 2000; Persson & Tabellini 2000; Fatás & Mihov 2003), IMF and World Bank analyses (IMF Fiscal Monitor 2024; IMF Working Papers; World Bank studies), and official national data. Key references are cited above for each claim, including global cross-country estimates[2][3][4] and case-specific reports (IMF Article IV, Election Commission publications). Updated macro figures are from the latest IMF WEO and country statistics where noted.
[1] [16] [17] [26] C:\Working Papers\10539.wpd
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w10539/w10539.pdf
[2] [10] [19] [22] [30] [31] Fiscal Monitor, April 2024; Executive Summary: Chapter 1: Fiscal Policy in the Great Election Year; April 17, 2024
https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/fiscal-monitor/2024/april/english/ch1.pdf
[3] [5] [8] [9] [11] [14] [21] [23] World Bank Document
[4] [20] [28] Fiscal Policy over the Election Cycle in Low-Income Countries; Christian Ebeke and Dilan Ölçer; IMF Working Paper 13/153; June 1, 2013
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp13153.pdf
[6] [12] [13] [15] [18] [24] [29] Political Business Cycle – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/political-business-cycle
[7] [25] Elections Matter: Capital Flows and Political Cycles
[27] Alternative Approaches to the Political Business Cycle
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1989/06/1989b_bpea_nordhaus_alesina_schultze.pdf
