earticle

영어

This paper intends to shed light on the institutional effect of the presidential electoral system, which was adopted during the transition to democracy, on the government's fiscal policy, especially budget deficit/surplus. Based on the logic of the previous studies on the causal relationship between the electoral systems and the government's policies, this paper builds a hypothesis that the differences in the type of presidential electoral system, e.g. the plurality system or the run-off system, bring about the differences in the government's expenditure, thereby contributing to the variations in the government's budget deficit/surplus. While controlling the effects of such variables affecting the government's budget deficit, this paper empirically tested the hypothesis by adopting the panel-corrected standard errors method as a panel analysis method. As a result, the panel analysis empirically supported the hypothesis of the paper that the difference in the type of presidential electoral system led to the variations in the government's budget deficit/surplus. As expected by the hypothesis, those countries which adopted the plurality system as a presidential electoral system are inclined to have either a larger amount of budget surplus or a smaller amount of budget deficit, compared to those countries which employed the run-off system as a presidential electoral system.

한국어

이 연구논문에서 분석하고자 했던 것은 신생민주주의국가들이 민주화 과정 속에서 채택 한 대통령선거제도의 차이가 이들 국가의 재정정책, 특히 재정적자의 차이에 어떠한 영향 력을미치는가에대한것이었다. 논문은선거제도와정부정책성향간의인과관계를다루었 던 연구의 논리를 바탕으로, 대통령제선거제도는 단순다수제이냐 아니면 결선투표제이냐 여하에 따라 정부의 재정지출의 차이를 유발하여 재정적자/흑자 규모의 차이를 낳을 것이 라는가설을구성했다. 재정적자/흑자에영향을줄수있는여타변수들의영향력을통제한 상태에서, 논문은 패널수정 표준오차방법(panel-corrected standard errors method)이라는 패널 분석방법을활용하여이연구가설을검증했다. 이패널분석은 대통령선거제도의차이가재 정적자/흑자 규모의 차이를 유발할 것이라는 논문의 연구가설을 경험적으로 지지해주었다. 논문의 연구가설의 예상대로, 단순다수제를 채택한 국가는 그렇지 않은, 즉 결선투표제를 채택한 국가보다 큰 규모의 재정흑자 또는 적은 규모의 재정적자를 나타냈다.