2

Benjamin Dunham Professor Gollob November 17th, 2011 Parliamentary versus Presidential Political efficiency in this case takes into a number of other statistical indicators. First the GINI index, this index scores nations on income equality on a scale of zero to one. The closer a nation is to zero the closer it is to income equality. Another factor I have taken into account a nations tax revenue as percentage of that specific nations GDP. By taking this tax revenue percentage and observing each nations poverty rates. We can observe whether higher taxes means a larger welfare state. Larger the welfare state means more sustainability for citizens. Also calculating the amount of public debt in each nation. Public debt is a sign of whether citizens are being forced to live above their means. Which comes right back to political efficiency. Are these tax dollars in the Governments hands going to use for the people? Thus political efficiency in this case means a nations governance providing for its people effectively. The independent variables being Presidential and Parliamentary systems of democracy. Specifically the following parliamentary systems nations: Sweden, The United Kingdom, Spain, Pakistan, Japan, Canada, and Denmark. Likewise the presidential: The United States, South Korea, Philippines, Mexico, Indonesia, Argentina, and Brazil. Strictly relating the dependent variable political efficiency to these separate entities. The measurement of these entities and their political efficiency will be weighed by a number of things. First tax revenue as part percentage of GDP. The importance of this cannot be understated. Measuring the level of taxation in a country is key in deciphering whether a country is politically and fiscally efficient with the revenue it generates from its people. Another

measurement is the GINI Index. This scores countries on their income equality. The lower the score the closer to absolute equality a nation is. To counter measure tax revenue we must look at a nations poverty rates. Poverty rates are indicative of either irresponsible government or wasteful expenditures. To measure those expenditures we also measure public debt, which shows if citizens are more inclined to be in debt due to economic constraints. All of these measurements make up how the independent variables will be analyzed. As you can see in the charts above, tax revenue in Presidential systems tends to be lower than that of Parliamentary systems. This is because most Parliamentary systems focus on safety nets for business and welfare for its people. Whereas in Presidential systems it is the systems goal to stay out of the free market. There is a trend in tax revenue and economic equality. Five out of the six presidential systems score above a .35 on the GINI index. Contrary to only three of the six parliamentary systems scoring above that .35. This is due to higher tax revenues in these parliamentary systems. The tax dollars gained in these systems is more directly pointed towards the welfare of the citizens. The principals of separation of powers hinders presidential systems ability to be fiscally efficient. Divided governance leads to wasteful expenditures and unnecessary clippings of other social programs for the benefit of a bill. The fear of many presidential systems large welfare programs is the free rider problem. Many of these systems believe if you make available social welfare programs you encourage citizens to take a step back. This view is flawed for one reason. If you are taxed more heavily you technically have played a larger role in the system. Due to high accountability in parliamentary systems many of the politicians bills they pass must have a keen interest in helping the nation as a whole. Poverty riddles every country. Though Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Argentina, and Brazil in this case have the highest out of all the nations. Only one of those countries is a parliamentary system,

Pakistan. Pakistans poverty can be related to its lack of tax revenue only 14.2% of GDP. Again my goal is not to make a definitive choice of supremacy between these systems. What has been decided is the stability of these two frameworks and how one is more efficient during our modern age. Presidential systems have an inherent flaw and advantage, separations of power. This separation if not handled correctly can lead to a system where two parties are unwilling to compromise for the sake of re-elections. This has subdued efficiency in these systems for most of the 21st century. However in parliamentary systems delegates are elected by the people, but because of the vote of confidence political log jams can be solved with dissolving of the current government. Income maintenance and redistribution, taking from one and giving to another. This concept is deeply rooted within many of these parliamentary systems. The statistics show Public Debt is higher in parliamentary systems on average. The correlation between tax revenue and public debt is clear. On the other hand my expected outcome, that higher taxation means less poverty, flounders. Data for my research was widely available because all countries keep record of expenditures and taxation. Using the CIA World Fact book, I was able to gather all of this information on each individual country. Though there was one thing that was not mentioned on CIA Fact book, Swedens poverty rates. According to them it has an inapplicable amount of poverty. After looking through articles I found one that states, Swedish poverty rates according to the American standard, they found that 6.7 percent of the Swedes in Sweden were living in poverty. 1 One limitation in this study is the nations themselves. Due to each nation being of different resource capabilities, nations may inherently struggle due to a dependency on outside resources. Another limitation is transparency. Due to many of the workings of government being
1

relatively hidden from the public eye, I cannot consider each systems unique political workings. However these limitations do no drastically affect the conclusion of this study. To add to the list of limitations I also must state that because parliamentary systems tend to have a large sense for redistribution of wealth, GINI index scores are slightly favorable to this framework. Measurement of these independent variables by my dependent variable are only observed through four factors. Because I am not considering all factors that play into economic equality and political efficiency a definitive answer is impossible. As we decipher the data, I have realized that the flaw with presidential systems is parties unwilling to compromise in a system built on compromise. Parliamentary systems are slightly more efficient due to high accountability with their delegates. Tax revenue is on average higher in these nations because of large welfare programs. Unlike Presidential systems who are focused on the free market. Whether Parliamentary systems are more efficient than Presidential systems is something that strictly depends on the individual systems themselves, not just the framework. Thus I have concluded that Presidential systems are predictable therefor more advantageous for a free market. Parliamentary systems are economically equal because of large welfare and redistribution policies. Notes 1. David Brooks, The Limits of Policy, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/opinion/04brooks.html 2. Data collected from, www.cia.gov