Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 175–196 | Cite as

Pass the Buck If You Can: How Partisan Competition Triggers Attribution Bias in Multilevel Democracies

  • Guillem Rico
  • Robert Liñeira
Original Paper

Abstract

Voters’ ability to hold politicians accountable has been shown to be limited in systems of multilevel government. The existence of multiple tiers of government blurs the lines of responsibility, making it more difficult for voters to assign credit or blame for policy performance. However, much less is known about how the vertical division of responsibility affects citizens’ propensity to rationalize responsibility attributions on the basis of group attachment. While these two processes have similar observable implications, they imply markedly different micro-mechanisms. Using experimental and observational data, this paper examines how the partisan division of power moderates the impact of voters’ partisanship and feelings of territorial attachment on attributions of responsibility for the regional economy. Our analyses show that partisan-based attribution bias varies systematically with the partisan context, such that it only emerges in regions where a party other than the national incumbent controls the regional government. We also find that responsibility judgments are rationalized on the basis of territorial identities only when a regional nationalist party is in control of the regional government. Our results contribute to explaining the contextual variations in the strength of regional economic voting and more generally to understanding one of the mechanisms through which low clarity of responsibility reduces government accountability.

Keywords

Motivated reasoning Clarity of responsibility Partisanship Territorial identity Spain 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dani Marinova for her guidance in preparing an earlier version of the manuscript. We are also very grateful to three anonymous reviewers, whose constructive comments greatly helped to clarify and improve the paper. This research was supported by the project “Stability and Change in Political Attitudes,” funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CSO2010-18534), and by a Ramón y Cajal grant to Guillem Rico (RYC-2012-09861).

Supplementary material

11109_2017_9409_MOESM1_ESM.docx (235 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 235 kb)

References

  1. Aja, E. (2014). Estado autonómico y reforma federal. Madrid: Alianza.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. J. (2000). Economic voting and political context: A comparative perspective. Electoral Studies, 19(2–3), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, C. D. (2006). Economic voting and multilevel governance: A comparative individual-level analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 449–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arceneaux, K. (2006). The federal face of voting: Are elected officials held accountable for the functions relevant to their office? Political Psychology, 27(5), 731–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkeson, L. R., & Partin, R. W. (1995). Economic and referendum voting: A comparison of gubernatorial and senatorial elections. American Political Science Review, 89(1), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bisgaard, M. (2015). Bias will find a way: Economic perceptions, attributions of blame, and partisan-motivated reasoning during crisis. Journal of Politics, 77(3), 849–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosch, N., & Duran, J. M. (Eds.). (2008). Fiscal federalism and political decentralization: Lessons from Spain, Germany and Canada. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, A. R. (2010). Are governors responsible for the state economy? Partisanship, blame, and divided federalism. Journal of Politics, 72(3), 605–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Chernyha, L. T., & Burg, S. L. (2012). Accounting for the effects of identity on political behavior: Descent, strength of attachment, and preferences in the regions of Spain. Comparative Political Studies, 45(6), 774–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colomer, J. M. (1998). The Spanish “state of autonomies”: Non-institutional federalism. West European Politics, 21(4), 40–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cutler, F. (2004). Government responsibility and electoral accountability in federations. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 34(2), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cutler, F. (2008). Whodunnit? Voters and responsibility in Canadian federalism. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 627–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Downs, W. M. (1999). Accountability payoffs in federal systems? Competing logics and evidence from Europe’s newest federation. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 29(1), 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Fitjar, R. D. (2010). Explaining variation in sub-state regional identities in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 49(4), 522–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gomez, B. T., & Wilson, J. M. (2001). Political Sophistication and economic voting in the American electorate: A theory of heterogeneous attribution. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 899–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gomez, B. T., & Wilson, J. M. (2003). Causal attribution and economic voting in American congressional elections. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gomez, B. T., & Wilson, J. M. (2008). Political sophistication and attributions of blame in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 38(4), 633–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hepburn, E. (2009). Introduction: Re-conceptualizing sub-state mobilization. Regional & Federal Studies, 19(4–5), 477–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobolt, S. B., & Tilley, J. (2014). Who’s in charge? How voters attribute responsibility in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies, 47(6), 795–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hobolt, S. B., Tilley, J., & Banducci, S. (2013a). Clarity of responsibility: How government cohesion conditions performance voting. European Journal of Political Research, 52(2), 164–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hobolt, S. B., Tilley, J., & Wittrock, J. (2013b). Listening to the government: How information shapes responsibility attributions. Political Behavior, 35(1), 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johns, R. (2011). Credit where it’s due? Valence politics, attributions of responsibility, and multi-level elections. Political Behavior, 33(1), 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Key, V. O. J. (1966). The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting, 1936-1960. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. León, S. (2011). Who is responsible for what? Clarity of responsibilities in multilevel states: The case of Spain. European Journal of Political Research, 50(1), 80–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. León, S., & Orriols, L. (2016). Asymmetric federalism and economic voting. European Journal of Political Research, 55(4), 847–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Nadeau, R. (2000). French electoral institutions and the economic vote. Electoral Studies, 19(2–3), 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leyden, K. M., & Borrelli, S. A. (1995). The effect of state economic conditions on gubernatorial elections: Does unified government make a difference? Political Research Quarterly, 48(2), 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lowry, R. C., Alt, J. E., & Ferree, K. E. (1998). Fiscal policy outcomes and electoral accountability in American States. American Political Science Review, 92(4), 759–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Malhotra, N. (2008). Partisan polarization and blame attribution in a federal system: The case of Hurricane Katrina. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 38(4), 651–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Malhotra, N., & Kuo, A. G. (2008). Attributing blame: The public’s response to Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 120–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marsh, M., & Tilley, J. (2010). The attribution of credit and blame to governments and its impact on vote choice. British Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moreno, L., Arriba, A., & Serrano, A. (1998). Multiple identities in decentralized Spain: The case of Catalonia. Regional & Federal Studies, 8(3), 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nawara, S. P. (2015). Who is responsible, the incumbent or the former president? Motivated reasoning in responsibility attributions. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 45(1), 110–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pallarés, F., & Keating, M. (2003). Multi-level electoral competition: Regional elections and party systems in Spain. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(3), 239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parker-Stephen, E. (2013). Clarity of responsibility and economic evaluations. Electoral Studies, 32(3), 506–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peffley, M., & Williams, J. T. (1985). Attributing presidential responsibility for national economic problems. American Politics Quarterly, 13(4), 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Powell, G. B. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Powell, G. B., & Whitten, G. D. (1993). A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rodden, J. (2004). Comparative federalism and decentralization: On meaning and measurement. Comparative Politics, 36(4), 481–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rudolph, T. J. (2003a). Institutional context and the assignment of political responsibility. Journal of Politics, 65(1), 190–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rudolph, T. J. (2003b). Who’s responsible for the economy? The formation and consequences of responsibility attributions. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 698–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rudolph, T. J. (2006). Triangulating political responsibility: The motivated formation of responsibility judgments. Political Psychology, 27(1), 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rudolph, T. J. (2016). The meaning and measurement of responsibility attributions. American Politics Research, 44(1), 106–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sirin, C. V., & Villalobos, J. D. (2011). Where does the buck stop? Applying attribution theory to examine public appraisals of the president. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41(2), 334–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Snyder, R. (2001). Scaling down: The subnational comparative method. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stein, R. M. (1990). Economic voting for governor and US senator: The electoral consequences of federalism. Journal of Politics, 52(1), 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
  54. Taylor, D. M., & Doria, J. R. (1981). Self-serving and group-serving bias in attribution. Journal of Social Psychology, 113(2), 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tilley, J., & Hobolt, S. B. (2011). Is the government to blame? An experimental test of how partisanship shapes perceptions of performance and responsibility. Journal of Politics, 73(2), 316–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Whitten, G. D., & Palmer, H. D. (1999). Cross-national analyses of economic voting. Electoral Studies, 18(1), 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departament de Ciència Política i Dret PúblicUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès)Spain
  2. 2.Department of Politics and International RelationsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations