Skip to main content

Culturally biased voting in the Eurovision Song Contest: Do national contests differ?

Abstract

The economic literature on the Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) establishes empirical evidence for culturally biased voting, more precisely also biases based on geographical closeness, political relations, ethnical and linguistic affinity. The Bundesvision Song Contest (BSC), a similar contest with principally the same rules but organized on the national level in Germany, offers a unique opportunity to compare international voting bias patterns to national voting bias patterns. Thus, this paper presents an innovative analysis by comparatively analyzing the ESC’s historical data from 1998 to 2014 and the BSC’s data from its beginning in 2005 until 2014 with the same econometric methodology. Our results show that voting biases do not only matter in international contests but also occur in similarly organized national contests with roughly similar magnitude and quality—despite the cultural background of participants and voters being much more homogenous.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. For reasons of completeness, there are also studies analyzing the ESC with special focus put on: ESC used as a lever for economic growth (Fleischer and Felsenstein 2002), the ESC as a proxy variable for explaining European trade (Kokko and Tingvall 2012) or in terms of pure simulations (Baker 2008; García and Tanase 2013).

  2. See http://www3.ebu.ch/cms/en/about?jsite=c49010fa-a809-4b28-a2c8-7363e32879c5.

  3. For comparison, there were 40 participating countries in Vienna in 2015.

  4. See http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/the-story.

  5. See http://www.eurovision.tv/page/about/rules for the whole chapter.

  6. The name is a combination of the prefix “Bundes” from Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany) and the Eurovision Song Contest.

  7. See http://tvtotal.prosieben.de/tvtotal/specials/bundesvision-song-contest/.

  8. Only from 1998 to 2008, the ESC used an audience-alone voting system. And only from 2014 onwards, the ESC publishes split results for jury and audience voting. However, this data set contains too few observations (to estimate robust results).

  9. To focus on televote only, we also ran a model specification for the years 1998–2008. The only considerable difference is that the variable Capital_Dis and French becomes insignificant when cultural dimensions are included.

  10. When including the (non-significant) dummy variable for the semifinal IDV becomes insignificant in the 2004–2013 specification, religion and most of the cultural dimensions turn out to be insignificant in the 2004–2007 specification.

  11. See http://www.eurovision.tv; http://www.kolumbus.fi/jarpen.

  12. See http://tvtotal.prosieben.de/tvtotal/specials/bundesvision-song-contest/.

  13. 58 = 12 + 10 + 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1.

  14. At this point, the “Overvaluation” already represents our dependent variable bias, in what we go into detail in the following chapter.

  15. We set the word “quality” in quotation marks since we do not want to pretend that this concept represents an indisputable operationalization of a term as difficult as quality of artistic creations and performances. In particular, it can be highly controversial whether majority assessments and evaluations (mass culture or popular culture) represent “quality.” For our purposes, however, it is exactly the deviation from the mass assessment among different groups of voters that we are looking for.

  16. See, e.g., Table 4.

  17. We obtained the length of common border and the neighbor countries from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html.

  18. We did not include a language dummy for the BSC, because songs must be sung in German; see Sect. 3.2.

  19. We have obtained the language variable from the French Research Center in international economics (Centre d'Etudes Prospectives et d'Informations Internationales (CEPII) and CIA World Factbook, see http://www.cepii.fr/CEPII/en/bdd_modele/bdd.asp.

  20. For the period 1968–1972, Hofstede conducted an extensive cross-cultural investigation for a sample of forty countries. The aim of his study was to show the fundamental differences in how people from different countries experience and interpret their world. The research project was carried out with 116.000 employees by company IBM with a comparable professional position, but from different nations. Using factor analysis of the received responses, Hofstede constructed four “dimensions” to describe each country’s culture. For each dimension, a country index of each participating nation was calculated. Because culture does not change very fast, the dimensions are still relevant and up to date (see http://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html).

  21. We have obtained the cultural dimensions from http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html.

  22. Also Long Term versus Short Term Normative Orientation and Indulgence versus Restraint are ignored in this study because of high incompleteness.

  23. A high value in Neuroticism refers to a high share of easily depressed and anxious individuals and a low share of extroverted personalities (which are very sociable and talkative), while Openness to Experience stands for creativity, artistic skills and unconventional human beings. The Agreeableness factor represents compassion, cooperation, and trust, while Conscientiousness is characterized by planned and organized behavior (Atkinson et al. 2000).

  24. We have obtained the major religions from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.

  25. Only OLS is discussed here, since the linear model with fixed effects leads to results that are very similar to those estimated. The same holds for the BSC.

  26. The model still holds for a smaller sample (when the cultural dimensions variables are not included) with countries for which cultural dimensions information is available without any changes in significance.

  27. In an alternative version with a re-constructed point allocation excluding own-state votes, the neighboring bias becomes a bit stronger. This version can be supplied upon request.

  28. GDR, i.e., German Democratic Republic (the former Eastern part of Germany); FRG, i.e., Federal Republic of Germany (the former Western part of Germany).

  29. Basically, the alternative model with point re-allocation excludes the patriotic voters which does not solve the problem of what the counterfactual votes of the patriotic voters would have looked like. Therefore, we chose not to report and discuss it in detail in this paper. Information can be obtained from the authors upon request.

References

  • Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R. C., Smith, E. E., Bem, D. J., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). Hilgard’s introduction to psychology. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, C. (2008). Wild dances and dying wolves: Simulation. Essentialization, and National Identity at the Eurovision Song Contest, Popular Communication, 6(3), 178–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruine de Bruin, W. (2005). Save the last dance for me: Unwanted serial position effects in jury evaluations. Acta Psychologica, 118(3), 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, M., & Christensen, C. (2008). The after-life of eurovision 2003: Turkish and European social imaginaries and ephemeral communicative space. Popular Communication, 6(3), 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clerides, S., & Stengos, T. (2006). Love thy neighbor, love thy kin: Voting biases in the eurovision song contest. Discussion Paper 01, University of Cyprus.

  • Costa, P. T, Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyen, I., Kruskal, J. B., & Black, P. (1992). An Indo-European classification: A lexicostatistical experiment. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 82, part. 5. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • EBU/UER. (2013). Rules of the Eurovision Song Contest. http://www.ebu.ch.

  • Fenn, D., Suleman, O., Efstathiou, J., & Johnson, N. (2006). How does Europe make its mind up? Connections, cliques and compatibility between countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 360(2), 576–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer, A., & Felsenstein, D. (2002). Cost-benefit analysis using economic surpluses: A case study of a televised event. Journal of Cultural Economics, 26(2), 139–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García, D., & Tanase, D. (2013). Measuring cultural dynamics through the Eurovision Song Contest. Resource document at http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.2995. Accessed December 5, 2014.

  • Gatherer, D. (2004). Birth of a meme: The origin and evolution of collusive voting patterns in the Eurovision Song Contest. Journal of Memetics—Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, Letter, 8(1), 28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatherer, D. (2006). Comparison of Eurovision Song Contest simulation with actual results reveals shifting patterns of collusive voting alliances. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(2).

  • Georgiou, M. (2008). “In the end, Germany will always resort to hot pants”: Watching Europe singing, constructing the stereotype. Popular Communication, 6(3), 141–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburgh, V., & Noury, A. G. (2008). The Eurovision Song Contest: Is voting political or cultural? European Journal of Political Economy, 24(1), 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glejser, H., & Heyndels, B. (2001). The ranking of finalists in the Queen Elisabeth international music competition. Journal of Cultural Economics, 25(2), 109–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haan, M. A., Dijkstra, S. G., & Dijkstra, P. T. (2005). Expert judgment versus public opinion? Evidence from the Eurovision Song Contest. Journal of Cultural Economics, 29(1), 59–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations. London: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture, revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 52–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iannaccone, L. R. (1998). Introduction to the economics of religion. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXVI, 1465–1496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokko, A., & Tingvall P. G. (2012). The Eurovision Song Contest, preferences and European trade. Ratio Working Paper No. 183.

  • Kressley, K. M. (1978). Integrated television in Europe: a note on the EUROVISION network. International Organization, 32(4), 1045–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuran, T. (1994). Religious economics and the economics of religion. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 150, 769–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R. (2001). Trait psychology and culture: Exploring intercultural comparisons. Journal of Personality, 69, 819–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1990). Personality in Adulthood. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 75–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 79 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 407–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Migliore, L. A. (2011). Relation between big five personality traits and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, samples from the USA and India. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 38–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obschonka, M., Schmitt-Rodermund, E., Silbereisen, R.K., Gosling, S.D., & Potter, J. (2013). The regional distribution and correlates of an entrepreneurship-prone personality profile in the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom: A socioecological perspective. SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research, No. 550.

  • Renato, F., & Ginsburgh, V. (1996). The Queen Elizabeth musical competition: How fair is the final ranking? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series D, the Statistician, 45, 97–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweiger, W., & Brosius, H. (2003). Eurovision Song Contest—Beeinflussen Nachrichtenfaktoren die Punktvergabe durch das Publikum? Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 51(2), 271–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spierdijk, L., & Vellekoop, M. (2009). The structure of bias in peer voting systems: Lessons from the Eurovision Song Contest. Empirical Economics, 36(2), 403–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verrier, D. B. (2012). Evidence for the influence of the mere-exposure effect on voting in the Eurovision Song Contest. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(5), 639–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yair, G. (1995). ‘Unite Unite Europe’ The political and cultural structures of Europe as reflected in the Eurovision Song Contest. Social Networks, 17(2), 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yair, G., & Maman, D. (1996). The persistent structure of hegemony in the Eurovision Song Contest. Acta Sociologica, 39(3), 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank two anonymous referees, Arne Feddersen, Dennis Rickert, Thomas Ostertag, Michael Stützer and Jens Weghake as well as the participants of the 47th Radein Research Seminar (February 2014), the 42nd Hohenheimer Oberseminar (Ilmenau, April 2014), the 18th International Conference on Cultural Economics (Montréal, June 2014) and the 11th World Media Economics and Management Conference (Rio de Janeiro, May 2014) for valuable and helpful comments to earlier versions of the paper. Furthermore, we are thankful to Ina Fredersdorf and Nadine Neute for valuable editorial assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Pannicke.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 46 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Table 7 Linear voting model, Eurovision Song Contest
Table 8 Country-specific linear voting model, Eurovision Song Contest, 1
Table 9 Country-specific linear voting model, Eurovision Song Contest, continued 2
Table 10 Country-specific linear voting model, Eurovision Song Contest, continued 3
Table 11 Linear voting model, Bundesvision Song Contest
Table 12 Country-specific linear voting model, Bundesvision Song Contest, 1
Table 13 Country-specific linear voting model, Bundesvision Song Contest, continued 2
Table 14 Country-specific linear voting model, Bundesvision Song Contest, continued 3

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Budzinski, O., Pannicke, J. Culturally biased voting in the Eurovision Song Contest: Do national contests differ?. J Cult Econ 41, 343–378 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-016-9277-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-016-9277-6

Keywords

  • Eurovision Song Contest
  • Bundesvision Song Contest
  • Culturally biased voting
  • Media economics
  • Cultural economics

JEL Classification

  • L82
  • Z10