Paying politicians more decreases their engagement

Scofflaw

An interesting little study noted by the Guardian on the effects of pay changes on political representatives.

The study in question is based on the change to a single rate of payment for MEPs back in 2009 from originally widely different national pay (a Polish MEP, for example, received €29,043, whereas their Italian counterpart was paid €142,512), and a comparison of engagement by MEPs before and after in light of what happened to their pay. Irish MEPs were amongst those whose salaries went down as a result of the decision - they had previously been paid at the same rate as TDs, who are among the better paid parliamentarians in the EU.

Surprisingly, the study found that those MEPs whose pay had fallen - such as Irish MEPs - increased their engagement, missing fewer parliament meetings, and/or asking more questions.

Those whose pay rates increased, on the other hand, missed more days, and asked fewer parliamentary questions.

Article: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/14/politicans-pay-work-ethic-meps

The conclusions don't really say anything, at least as recorded in the article:

"We find that a decrease in salaries motivates parliamentarians to increase their attendance," the economists write. The increase in salary also had a negative impact on the number of written or oral questions asked by parliamentarians.

"European parliamentarians are responsible for passing laws that affect the member countries," the two academics write. "They have control over the EU budget and they supervise the other EU institutions. So given the significance of the job, it might be presumed that the effort MEPs put into their work would not be influenced by their salary. The results of our analysis show that this is not the case."

Personally, I'd put this down to cognitive dissonance. MEPs, like everyone else, presumably ask themselves why they're doing what they do. The answer is probably composed of two parts - (1) this job is important, and (2) this job is well paid.

When the power of the latter justification decreases, to maintain similar levels of self-justification, you need to increase the power of the former - and when you feel that the job is important, you're more likely to do more of it.

Might have some implications for our rather well-paid TDs?

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton

Could it be that the reduction in salary meant that they needed to make it up in other ways, such as increased expenses (ie pay 100 for a flight and claim a 200 allowance)?

Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Could it be that the reduction in salary meant that they needed to make it up in other ways, such as increased expenses (ie pay 100 for a flight and claim a 200 allowance)?

Well, not in that sense, I think, because the reimbursement is for the amount spent - again, that changed in 2009. However, there is a per diem payment for plenary attendance, which is €300.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sfakiaman

In economics there is evidence to show that men have a backward bending labour supply curve, interestingly women do not. I wonder if the study on MEP's has been done on a gender basis.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/backward-bending-supply/

Scofflaw

sfakiaman wrote: »

In economics there is evidence to show that men have a backward bending labour supply curve, interestingly women do not. I wonder if the study on MEP's has been done on a gender basis.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/backward-bending-supply/

The study includes gender as a variable, but they don't seem to have any findings to report with respect to it. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the personal characteristics needed to become a politician trump mainstream gender differences, but that's purely speculation.

cordially,
Scofflaw