Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T03:41:46.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Perceptions and Electoral Choices: A Design-Based Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2017

Giancarlo Visconti Open the ORCID record for Giancarlo Visconti [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Do economic perceptions affect voters’ electoral choices? There is ample evidence showing a correlation between how people perceive the current state of the economy and electoral decisions. However, there are reasons to believe that political preferences can also determine how voters evaluate economic conditions, which will reverse the causality arrow. The strategies previously implemented to address this problem have been based on the use of structural equations and instrumental variables, but they require very strong parametric or identification assumptions. In this paper, I follow a design-based approach by emphasizing the study design rather than statistical modeling. In contrast to previous studies that used the same panel data in Brazil, I find evidence that supports egotropic, rather than sociotropic, voting. This finding shows that traditional research designs may be overstating the magnitude of sociotropic economic voting.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 795 - 813
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Giancarlo Visconti is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Political Science, Columbia University, 420 West 118th Street, International Affairs Building, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10027 ([email protected]). The author thanks José Miguel Cabezas, Sarah Goldberg, Timothy Hellwig, Shigeo Hirano, Martha Kropf, M. Victoria Murillo, Mark Pickup, José Zubizarreta, and participants at the Southern Political Science Association conference for their valuable comments and suggestions. The author is grateful to the authors of the Two Cities Panel Study, Mexico Panel Study, and Brazilian Electoral Panel Study for making their data available. All errors are the author’s own. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2017.26

References

Alcañiz, Isabella, and Hellwig, Timothy. 2011. ‘Who’s to blame? The distribution of responsibility in developing democracies’. British Journal of Political Science 41(02):389–411.Google Scholar
Alt, James E, Marshall, John, and Lassen, David D. 2016. ‘Credible Sources and Sophisticated Voters: When Does New Information Induce Economic Voting?’. The Journal of Politics 78(2):327–342.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 1995. ‘Economics, Issues and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election’. American Journal of Political Science, pp. 714–744.Google Scholar
Ames, Barry, Baker, Andy, and Renno, Lucio. 2008. ‘The Quality of Elections in Brazil: Policy, Performance, Pagentry, or Pork?’. In P. Kingstone and T. Power (eds), Democratic Brazil Revisited, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J. 2007. ‘The end of economic voting? Contingency dilemmas and the limits of democratic accountability’. Annual Review of Political Science 10:271–296.Google Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., Imbens, Guido W, and Rubin, Donald B. 1996. ‘Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables’. Journal of the American statistical Association 91(434):444–455.Google Scholar
Anson, Ian, and Hellwig, Timothy. 2015. ‘Economic Models of Voting’. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource.Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 1–14.Google Scholar
Baker, Andy, Ames, Barry, Sokhey, Anand E., and Renno, Lucio R.. 2015. ‘Replication Data for: The Dynamics of Partisan Identification when Party Brands Change: The Case of the Workers Party in Brazil.’ Harvard Dataverse.Google Scholar
Baker, Andy, Ames, Barry, and Renno, Lucio R. 2006. ‘Social context and campaign volatility in new democracies: networks and neighborhoods in Brazil’s 2002 elections’. American Journal of Political Science 50(2):382–399.Google Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth A, and Pearl, Judea. 2013. ‘Eight Myths About Causality and Structural Equation Models’. In S. L. Morgan (Ed.), Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research, 301–328. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Cabezas, José M. 2015. ‘Presidential Support in Latin America 2010-2012: Economic Vote and Political Preference’. Poltica 53(1):15–35.Google Scholar
Campello, Daniela, and Zucco, Cesar. 2015. ‘Presidential Success and the World Economy’. Journal of Politics. 78(2):589–602.Google Scholar
Cochran, William G. 1965. ‘The Planning of Observational Studies of Human Populations’. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) 128(2):234–266.Google Scholar
Dorn, Harold F. 1953. ‘Philosophy of Inferences from Retrospective Studies’. American Journal of Public Health and the Nations Health 43(6 Pt 1):677–683.Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond M. 2007. ‘Comparative Studies of the Economy and the Vote’. In Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes (eds), Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, 805–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond M., Palmer, Harvey D, and Anderson, Christopher J. 2000. ‘Heterogeneity in perceptions of national economic conditions’. American Journal of Political Science, pp. 635–652.Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond M., and Stevenson, Randy. 2008. Voting in Context: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition the Economic Vote. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dunning, Thad. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 2004. ‘Macro Vs. Micro-Level Perspectives on Economic Voting: Is the Micro-Level Evidence Endogenously Induced?’ Political Methodology Meetings, 2004. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey, and Pickup, Mark. 2010. ‘Reversing the Causal Arrow: The Political Conditioning of Economic Perceptions in the 2000–2004 US Presidential Election Cycle’. The Journal of Politics 72(4):1236–1251.Google Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey, and Andersen, Robert. 2006. ‘The Political Conditioning of Economic Perceptions’. Journal of Politics 68(1):194–207.Google Scholar
Freedman, David A. 1987. ‘As Others See Us: A Case Study in Path Analysis’. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 12(2):101–128.Google Scholar
Freedman, David A. 2005. Statistical models for causation. Unpublished Manuscript Berkeley University. https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~census/651.pdf.Google Scholar
Freedman, David A. 2006. ‘Statistical Models for Causation What Inferential Leverage do They Provide?’ Evaluation Review 30(6):691–713.Google Scholar
Gélineau, Francois, and Singer, Matthew M.. 2015. ‘The Economy and Incumbent Support in Latin America’. In Ryan E. Carlin, Matthew M. Singer, and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister (Eds.), The Latin American Voter: Pursuing Representation and Accountability in Challenging Contexts. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 281–99.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Greene, Kenneth. 2012. ‘Mexico Panel Study, 2012’. ICPSR35024-v1. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G., and Gomez, Brad T.. 2015. ‘Reevaluating the Sociotropic Economic Voting Hypothesis’. Electoral Studies 39:15–25.Google Scholar
Hellwig, Timothy, and Samuels, David. 2008. ‘Electoral accountability and the variety of democratic regimes’. British Journal of Political Science 38(01):65–90.Google Scholar
Hidalgo, F. Daniel, and Nichter, Simeon. 2015. ‘Voter Buying: Shaping the Electorate Through Clientelism’. American Journal of Political Science 60(2):436–455.Google Scholar
Ho, Daniel E, Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary, and Stuart, Elizabeth A. 2007. ‘Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference’. Political analysis 15(3):199–236.Google Scholar
Hunter, Wendy, and Power, Timothy J.. 2007. ‘Rewarding Lula: Executive Power, Social Policy, and the Brazilian Elections of 2006’. Latin American Politics and Society 49(1):1–30.Google Scholar
Imbens, Guido W. 2010. ‘Better LATE than nothing: Some comments on Deaton (2009) and Heckman and Urzua (2009)’. Journal of Economic literature 48(2):399–423.Google Scholar
Keele, Luke. 2010. ‘An Overview of Rbounds: An R Package for Rosenbaum Bounds Sensitivity Analysis with Matched Data’. White Paper. Columbus, OH, 1–15.Google Scholar
Keele, Luke. 2015. ‘The Statistics of Causal Inference: A View from Political Methodology’. Political Analysis 23(3):313–335.Google Scholar
Kilcioglu, Cinar, and Zubizarreta, José R.. 2016. ‘Maximizing the Information Content of a Balanced Matched Sample in a Study of the Economic Performance of Green Buildings’. Annals of Applied Statistics 10(4):1997–2020.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., Adams, Gordon S, and Gronke, Paul W. 1989. ‘Economics and Politics in the 1984 American Presidential Election’. American Journal of Political Science, pp. 491–515.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Ratto, Mara Celeste. 2013. ‘Economic Voting in Latin America: A General Model’. Electoral Studies 32(3):489–493.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Stegmaier, Mary. 2000. ‘Economic Determinants of Electoral Outcomes’. Annual Review of Political Science 3(1):183–219.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Nadeau, Richard, and Elias, Angelo. 2008. ‘Economics, party, and the vote: Causality issues and panel data’. American Journal of Political Science 52(1):84–95.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M.S., and M, Stegmaier, 2007. ‘Economic models of voting’. In: Dalton, R.J. and Klingemann, H.D. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, 518–37. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Little, Roderick JA. 1985. ‘A note about models for selectivity bias’. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp. 1469–1474.Google Scholar
Margalit, Yotam. 2013. ‘Explaining Social Policy Preferences: Evidence from the Great Recession’. American Political Science Review 107(1):80–103.Google Scholar
Murillo, M. Victoria, and Visconti, Giancarlo. 2017. ‘Economic Performance and Incumbents’ Support in Latin America’. Electoral Studies 45:180–190.Google Scholar
Nadeau, Richard, Lewis-Beck, Michael S, and Bélanger, Éric. 2013. ‘Economics and Elections Revisited’. Comparative Political Studies 46(5):551–573.Google Scholar
Navia, Patricio, and Soto, Ignacio. 2015. ‘It’s Not the Economy, Stupid.¿ Qué tanto explica el voto económico los resultados en elecciones presidenciales en Chile, 1999-2013?’ Poltica 53(1):165–186.Google Scholar
Norvell, Daniel C., and Cummings, Peter. 2002. ‘Association of Helmet Use With Death in Motorcycle Crashes: A Matched-Pair Cohort Study’. American Journal of Epidemiology 156(5):483–487.Google Scholar
Powell, G Bingham Jr, and Whitten, Guy D. 1993. ‘A cross-national analysis of economic voting: taking account of the political context.’ American Journal of Political Science, pp. 391–414.Google Scholar
Ratto, Maria Celeste. 2013. ‘Accountability y voto económico en América Latina: Un estudio de las pautas de comportamiento electoral entre 1996 y 2004’. Revista Mexicana de Análisis Poltico y Administración Pública 2(1):49–80.Google Scholar
Resa, M., and Zubizarreta, J. R.. 2016. ‘Evaluation of subset matching methods and forms of covariate balance’. Statistics in medicine 35(27):4961–4979.Google Scholar
Rodrik, Dani. 2001. ‘Why is There So Much Economic Insecurity in Latin America?’. Cepal Review 73:7–30.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R. 1998. ‘Multivariate Matching Methods’. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences 2:435–438.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R. 2002a. ‘Covariance Adjustment in Randomized Experiments and Observational Studies’. Statistical Science 17(3):286–327.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R. 2002b. Observational Studies. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R. 2004. ‘Design Sensitivity in Observational Studies’. Biometrika 91(1):153–164.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R. 2005. ‘Heterogeneity and Causality: Unit Heterogeneity and Design Sensitivity in Observational Studies’. The American Statistician 59(2):147–152.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R. 2006. ‘Differential Effects and Generic Biases in Observational Studies’. Biometrika 93(3):573–586.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R. 2010. Design of Observational Studies. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R. 2011. ‘What Aspects of the Design of an Observational Study Affect its Sensitivity to Bias from Covariates that Were Not Observed?’. In Dorans N, Sinharay S, eds. Looking Back: Proceedings of a Conference in Honor of Paul W. Holland. New York, NY: Springer; 2011:87–114.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R, Ross, Richard N., and Silber, Jeffrey H.. 2007. ‘Minimum Distance Matched Sampling With Fine Balance in an Observational Study of Treatment for Ovarian Cancer’. Journal of the American Statistical Association 102(477):75–83.Google Scholar
Rubin, Donald B. 2008. ‘For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis’. Annals of Applied Statistics 2(3):808–840.Google Scholar
Sekhon, Jasjeet S. 2004. ‘The Varying Role of Voter Information Across Democratic Societies’. APSA Paper presented at the 2014 APSA meeting.Google Scholar
Singer, Matthew M. 2013. ‘Economic Voting in an Era of Non-Crisis: The Changing Electoral Agenda in Latin America, 1982–2010’. Comparative Politics 45(2):169–185.Google Scholar
Singer, Matthew M., and Carlin, Ryan E.. 2013. ‘Context Counts: The Election Cycle, Development, and the Nature of Economic Voting’. The Journal of Politics 75(3):730–742.Google Scholar
Sovey, Allison J., and Green, Donald P.. 2011. ‘Instrumental Variables Estimation in Political Science: A Readers’ Guide’. American Journal of Political Science 55(1):188–200.Google Scholar
Steiger, James H. 2001. ‘Driving fast in reverse’. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96(453):331–338.Google Scholar
Stuart, Elizabeth A. 2010. ‘Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward’. Statistical Science: A Review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics 25(1):1–21.Google Scholar
Tilley, James, and Hobolt, Sara B.. 2011. ‘Is the Government to Blame? An Experimental Test of How Partisanship Shapes Perceptions of Performance and Responsibility”’. The Journal of Politics 73(2):316–330.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Jose, and Kilcioglu, Cinar. 2016. ‘Designmatch: Construction of Optimally Matched Samples for Randomized Experiments and Observational Studies that are Balanced by Design’. R package version 0.1.1.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Jose, and Keele, Luke. 2016. ‘Optimal Multilevel Matching in Clustered Observational Studies: A Case Study of the Effectiveness of Private Schools Under a Large-Scale Voucher System’. Journal of the American Statistical Association, (just-accepted).Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, José R. 2012. ‘Using Mixed Integer Programming for Matching in an Observational Study of Kidney Failure After Surgery’. Journal of the American Statistical Association 107(500):1360–1371.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, José R, Cerdá, Magdalena, and Rosenbaum, Paul R. 2013. ‘Effect of the 2010 Chilean Earthquake on Posttraumatic Stress Reducing Sensitivity to Unmeasured Bias Through Study Design’. Epidemiology 24(1):79–87.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, José R., Paredes, Ricardo D., and Rosenbaum, Paul R.. 2014. ‘Matching for Balance, Pairing for Heterogeneity in an Observational Study of the Effectiveness of For-Profit and Not-For-Profit High Schools in Chile’. The Annals of Applied Statistics 8(1):204–231.Google Scholar
Zucco, Cesar. 2013. ‘When Payouts Pay Off: Conditional Cash Transfers and Voting Behavior in Brazil 2002–10’. American Journal of Political Science 57(4):810–822.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Visconti Dataset

Dataset

http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/BT7OZQ
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Visconti supplementary material

Appendix

Download Visconti supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 366.2 KB