political economy, finance, theory

We study the political economy of loan guarantees within a credit-rationing framework. A government uses guarantees to decrease the borrowing cost, thus making more households incentive compatible. This shifts capital to productive projects (allocative effect). Backed by taxpayers, loan guarantees also shift consumption from nonborrowers to borrowers (redistributive effect). While a welfare-maximizing planner is only concerned about the allocative effect, vote-share-maximizing politicians are driven by the interaction of both effects. As a result, politicians may underprovide or overprovide guarantees compared to the welfare-maximizing solution, depending on the electoral setup, household risk aversion, income heterogeneity, and guarantees’ externalities.

Keywords: loan guarantees, credit-rationing, redistributive effect, allocative effect, voting

Link to paper here

In a general equilibrium framework, we show that banks may “buy” political influence at a discount: They offer disproportionately small campaign contributions compared to the influence they exert, thus generating abnormal returns. We distinguish between the direct effect of contributions which, as a cost, reduce bank returns, and the indirect effect of contributions which boost returns via inducing bank-favoring policies. Therefore, abnormal returns may or may not increase with the amount of contributions, depending on which effect dominates: Stricter capital requirements decrease contributions and abnormal returns. When politicians attach more weight to households’ welfare, contributions increase and abnormal returns decrease.

Keywords: campaign contributions, banks, abnormal returns, abnormal risk-taking, general equilibrium

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109023000625