Research shows that political disputes and political uncertainty take a toll on business investment

Partisan arguments aren’t just annoying – they’re also bad for business.

That’s what my colleagues and I discovered in a recent study on the impact of environmental policy uncertainty on corporate investment.

First we analyzed over 300 million press articlestrying to find keywords related to environmental policy uncertainty. We found that this uncertainty increases during election periods and has almost doubled over the past decade.

Then we took a look business investment rates of interest – a common way of assessing a company’s financial health – in corporations in affected sectors akin to agriculture, mining, energy and automotive. We found that environmental policy uncertainty reduced these corporations’ business investment rates by 0.010%.

This may not seem to be much, but how economists like me You know, small amounts add up over time.

For example, we found that the rise in environmental policy uncertainty within the run-up to the 2008 presidential elections was linked to a one-off 25% decline within the investment rate for corporations covered by environmental policy. This effect was greater than the uncertainty related to defense, health and financial policies.

But my team also found positive sides. We found that political uncertainty had a much smaller impact on business investment when control of Congress was divided and policy changes required bipartisan support.

When the identical political party controlled each houses of Congress, environmental policy uncertainty was related to a 0.013% decline in investment rates. However, when Congress was divided, this decline shrunk to a much smaller 0.002%.

Why it matters

Because political uncertainty typically increases around elections, our results suggest that the present political environment is hampering business investment.

Our research also suggests that policies geared toward boosting business investment could also be less effective than previously thought due to uncertainty they introduce.

Let’s take for instance Inflation Reduction Actpassed in 2021, and the bipartisan Infrastructure Act of 2022. Both were designed to encourage investment in clean energy technologies.

However, uncertainty over whether these packages can be adopted in any respect – and if that’s the case, what the policies would come with – could have discouraged investment before they got here into force. Uncertainty over what features of the foundations will apply after the election could also hamper business investment.

There could also be a degree of uncertainty built into the democratic process. After all, the faster and more secretive a government is, the less accountable it’s to the general public. If you concentrate on it this fashion, some uncertainty is an inevitable cost of a sound policymaking process.

Our research puts a price on these costs and reminds policymakers that political conflicts are a drag on the economy. Our results suggest one promising path forward: bipartisanship.

What’s next?

Because there may be such a wide range of environmental policies, our team is currently conducting research to see whether corporations respond otherwise to the uncertainty related to “carrot” policies – akin to subsidies or tax breaks – in comparison with “stick” policies, akin to fines or other penalties.

Answering this query will help decision makers minimize the results of uncertainty.

It’s also an open query whether news articles convey information to business leaders or just reflect information they have already got. In the latter case, media coverage might not be a good measure of the uncertainty corporations face.

To solve this problem, we’re working on developing ways to measure uncertainty based on transcripts of telephone conversations about earnings as an alternative of press articles. They could provide a more direct strategy to measure uncertainty affecting business decisions.