Motives behind voting and the perception of the motives: paradox of voting in Bosnia and Herzegovina

  • Anida Krajina
  • Jakub Prochazka
Original Paper


The prosperity of developing countries highly depends on the voting outcomes, as they represent the key to economic and social progress. However, there is limited evidence on what motivates people to vote. Moreover, their reasons for voting go beyond material self-interest, which is the conventional assumption. As the expected benefit from voting is rather small compared to the time cost and effort, there has been a need for better understanding of the phenomenon. Thus, the theory of expressive voting provides an alternative to the rational voter hypothesis. Due to its complex political system, Bosnia and Herzegovina is an interesting example of a developing country, which is why it was chosen for this study. The latest local elections were organized in 2016 and the present paper examines the perception of voters and tries to answer the question of why people voted the way they did, and why they think others voted as they did. A convenient sample of 406 citizens from Bosnia and Herzegovina completed the survey. Although there is little chance that one vote would influence the election, the strongest reason for voting was to affect the results. The reasons “it is a democratic obligation to vote” and “to express the political view by voting” were also mostly considered as important or very important. People perceived not voting as unethical. This perception was stronger among left-wing voters. The results also showed that people generally believe that they vote less selfishly than others. The majority of the respondents considered selfish voting as unethical or very unethical. The study also describes the influence of socio-demographic variables on the reasons and motives for voting and on the perception of selfish voting and not voting. The method was replicated from a study conducted in Sweden by Carlsson and Johansson-Stenman (Kyklos 63:495–516, 2010). The results of both studies are compared.


Expressive voting Elections Economic development 

JEL Classification

D72 F63 O12 



This paper was elaborated within the framework of Masaryk University Specific Research Project MUNI/A/1021/2015.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (2015). Women and men in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thematic Bulletin. Retrieved 20 Dec 2016.
  2. Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (2016). Cenzus of population households and dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina 2013—final results. Retrieved 20 Dec 2016.
  3. Ali, S. N., & Lin, C. (2013). Why people vote: Ethical motives and social incentives. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 5(2), 73–98. Scholar
  4. Analitika-Center for Social Research. (2014). Survey results: A high level of distrust in political parties and government institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Fact Sheet. Retrieved 20 Dec 2016.
  5. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191. Scholar
  6. Bischoff, I., & Krauskopf, T. (2015). Warm glow of giving collectively—An experimental study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 51, 210–218. Scholar
  7. Bischoff, I., Neuhaus, C., Trautner, P., & Weber, B. (2013). The neuroeconomics of voting: Neural evidence of different sources of utility in voting. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 6(4), 215–235. Scholar
  8. Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2010). Why do you vote and vote as you do? Kyklos, 63(4), 495–516. Scholar
  9. Desilver, D. (2014). The politics of American generations: How age affects attitudes and voting behaviour. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 23 Dec 2016.
  10. Dickson, S. (2017). Observation of local elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2 October 2016). Congress of Local and Regional Authorities-Council of Europe. Retrieved from:
  11. Dittmann, I., Kubler, D., Maug, E., & Mechtenberg, L. (2014). Why votes have value: instrumental voting with overconfidence and overestimation of others’ errors. Games and Economic Behavior, 84, 17–38.  10.1016/j.geb.2013.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Etang, A., Fielding, D., & Knowles, S. (2016). Who votes expressively, and why? Experimental evidence. Bulletin of Economic Research, 68(2), 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falks, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2016). The preference survey module: a validated instrument for measuring risk, time, and social preferences. Netspar Discussion Paper No. 01/2016-003. Available at SSRN: or
  14. Feddersen, T., Gailmard, S., & Sandroni, A. (2009). Moral bias in large elections: Theory and experimental evidence. American Political Science Review, 103(02), 175–192. Scholar
  15. Galais, C., & Blais, S. (2015). Do people feel more of a duty to vote in some elections?. West European Politics, 39(4), 755–777. doi:
  16. Gintis, H. (2016). Homo ludens: Social rationality and political behavior. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 126(2016), 95–109. Scholar
  17. Global Security. (2013). BiH-political parties. Retrieved 20 Dec 2016.
  18. Global Security. (2017). Political parties. Retrieved 20 Dec 2016.
  19. Hamlin, A., & Jennings, C. (2011). Expressive political behaviour: Foundations, scope and implications. British Journal of Political Science, 41(03), 645–670. Scholar
  20. Han, J. K. (2016). Income inequality and voting for radical right-wing parties. Electoral Studies, 42(2016), 54–64. Scholar
  21. Heath, O., Verniers, G., & Kumar, S. (2015). Do Muslim voters prefer Muslim candidates? Co-religiosity and voting behaviour in India. Electoral Studies, 38(2015), 10–18. Scholar
  22. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henry, E. A., Bartholow, B. D., & Arndt, J. (2010). Death on the brain: Effects of mortality salience on the neural correlates of ingroup and outgroup categorization. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(1), 77–87. Scholar
  24. Hillman, A. L. (2010). Expressive behavior in economics and politics. European Journal of Political Economy, 26(4), 403–418. Scholar
  25. Hooper, A. (2015). Dissatisfied voters and no alternative: The unchallenged position of political elites in Bosnia and Herzegovina. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Retrieved 23 Dec 2016.
  26. Horowitz, J., & Long, J. (2016). Strategic voting, information, and ethnicity in emerging democracies: Evidence from Kenya. Electoral Studies, 44(2016), 351–361. Scholar
  27. Hur, A. (2016). Is there an intrinsic duty to vote? Comparative evidence from East and West Germans. Electoral Studies, 45(2016), 55–62. Scholar
  28. Huskic, A. (2014). Elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A revolution, evolution or stagnation? Contemporary Southeastern Europe, 1(2), 99–109.Google Scholar
  29. Jenke, L., & Huettel, A. S. (2016). Issues or identity? Cognitive foundations of voter choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(11), 794–804. Scholar
  30. Lilyanova, V. (2015). Bosnia and Herzegovina: Political parties (At a Glance No. PE 568.324). European Parliament. Retrieved from European Parliamentary Research Service website: Retrieved 20 Dec 2016.
  31. Minkler, A.P. (1997). The problem with utility: Towards a non-consequentialist/utility theory synthesis. Economics Working Papers. 199709. Retrieved 15 Nov 2016.
  32. Nardelli, A., Dzidic, D., & Jukic, E. (2014). Bosnia and Herzegovina: The world’s most complicated system of government? The Guardian. Retrieved 23 Dec 2016.
  33. Pasic, L. (2016). The 2016 local elections in Bosnia: A win for the major ethno-nationalist parties. Balkanalysis. Retrieved 20 Dec 2016.
  34. Rasmussen, A. W. (2017). “As long as they are not shooting…”: Political culture and participation in Bosnia–Herzegovina. Balkan Diskurs. Retrieved 20 Dec 2016.
  35. Schnellenbach, J., & Schubert, C. (2015). Behavioral political economy: A survey. European Journal of Political Economy, 40(2015), 395–417. Scholar
  36. Shayo, M., & Harel, A. (2012). Non-consequentialist voting. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 81(1), 299–313. Scholar
  37. Somun-Krupalija, L. (2011). Gender and employment in Bosnia and Herzegovina—A country study. International Labour Organization.—dgreports/—gender/documents/publication/wcms_170832.pdf. Retrieved 21 Dec 2016.
  38. Tyran, J.-R. (2002). Voting when money and morals conflict: An experimental test of expressive voting. SSRN Electronic Journal. Scholar
  39. United Nations. (1995). Dayton agreement: general framework agreement for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Retrieved 21 Dec 2016.
  40. Urbatsch, R. (2012). The paradox of voting intelligently. Public Choice, 150(3–4), 511–524. Scholar
  41. Veličković, M. (2014). Parties, elections, parliaments: Women in politics in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Human Rights Papers. Retrieved 21 Dec 2016.
  42. Wagner, M., & Kritzinger, S. (2012). Ideological dimensions and vote choice: Age group differences in Austria. Electoral studies, 31(2012), 285–296. Scholar
  43. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. Scholar

Copyright information

© Eurasia Business and Economics Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Corporate EconomicsMasaryk University BrnoBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations