We develop a dynamic game-theoretic model of government reform under electoral incentives and donor conditionalities, formulated within a Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium (PBE) framework. Governments strategically choose costly reforms to signal competence to voters, whose beliefs evolve endogenously through noisy public signals, while adhering to budget constraints imposed by international donors. By comparing the PBE with a Stackelberg-style benchmark in which voter and donor beliefs are treated as exogenous, we show that while both equilibria coincide at boundary solutions, the PBE generates strictly higher reform effort in interior regions due to forward-looking strategic interactions and endogenous belief feedback. Extending the model to incorporate bounded rationality, we capture politically myopic policymakers, demonstrating how limited foresight dampens signaling incentives and reshapes equilibrium reform paths. Incorporating stochastic fiscal shocks and heterogeneous voter responsiveness further reflects uncertainty and informational frictions that constrain policy effort. Our results reveal the complex interplay between electoral dynamics, donor conditions, and reform credibility: rigid aid rules can suppress reform incentives near elections, whereas flexible, state-contingent assistance enhances welfare. This framework advances the signaling and political economy literature by unifying dynamic electoral competition, aid dependence, and belief-driven reform incentives within a tractable dynamic game structure, offering novel insights into how strategic anticipation and information feedback shape policy outcomes over time. We also uncover a novel mechanism whereby endogenous belief feedback amplifies reform effort in interior equilibria, generating higher and faster policy responses than exogenous-belief benchmarks, highlighting the dynamic role of electoral incentives and donor responsiveness.
Ryle S. Perera (2025) studied this question.