Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 767–789 | Cite as

Cross-National Yardstick Comparisons: A Choice Experiment on a Forgotten Voter Heuristic

  • Kasper M. Hansen
  • Asmus L. Olsen
  • Mickael Bech
Original Paper

Abstract

Comparing performance between countries is both a theoretically and intuitively useful yardstick for voters. Cross-national comparisons provide voters with heuristics that are less cognitively demanding, less ambiguous, and less uncertain than solely national, absolute performance measurements. We test this proposition using a unique, choice experiment embedded in the 2011 Danish National Election Study. This design allows to contrast cross-national comparisons with more traditional national sociotropic and egotropic concerns. The findings suggest that voters are strongly influenced by cross-national performance comparisons—even when accounting for classic national sociotropic and egotropic items. Specifically, voters respond strongly to how the prospective wealth of Denmark evolves relative to the neighboring Sweden. Interestingly, voters are more negative in their response to cross-national losses compared to their positive response to cross-national gains—indicating a negativity bias in voters’ preferences.

Keywords

Yardstick comparison Social comparison Economic voting Conjoint experiment Discrete choice experiment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the reviewers and editors for their comments. Previous versions were presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference. April, 2012, a seminar at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, October 2012 and, a seminar at the Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, November 2011. We thank the participants for valuable comments. A special thank goes to Michael Lewis-Beck, Oliver James, Fabrizio Gilardi, and Søren Serritzlew for their valuable input to earlier versions of the manuscript. Any remaining errors are our responsibility alone.

References

  1. Alvarez, R. M., Nagler, J., & Willette, J. R. (2000). Measuring the relative impact of issues and the economy in democratic elections. Electoral Studies, 19(2–3), 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, S., Meredith, M., & Snowberg, E. (2012). Asking about numbers: Why and how. Political Analysis, 21(1), 48–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechtel, M. M., Hainmueller, J., & Margalit, Y. M. (2012). Studying public opinion on multidimensional policies: The case of the Eurozone bailouts. Working Paper No. 2012-27. MIT: Political-Science Department.Google Scholar
  5. Bellucci, P., & Lewis-Beck, M. S. (2011). A stable popularity function? Cross-national analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 50(2), 190–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellucci, P., Lobo, M. C., & Lewis-Beck, M. S. (2012). Economic crisis and elections: The European periphery. Electoral Studies, 31(3), 469–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett, J., & Blamey, R. (2001). The choice modeling approach to environmental evaluation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub.Google Scholar
  8. Besley, T., & Case, A. (1995). Incumbent behavior: Vote-seeking, tax-setting, and yardstick competition. The American Economic Review, 85(1), 25–45.Google Scholar
  9. Bloom, H. S., & Price, H. D. (1975). Voter Response to short-run economic conditions: The asymmetric effect of prosperity and Recession. American Political Science Review, 69(4), 1240–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borre, O. (1997). Economic voting in Danish electoral surveys 1987-1994. Scandinavian Political Studies, 20(4), 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bosch, N., & Solé-Ollé, A. (2007). Yardstick competition and the political costs of raising taxes: An empirical analysis of Spanish municipalities. International Tax and Public Finance, 14(1), 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boyne, G., James, O., John, P., & Petrovsky, N. (2009). Democracy and government performance: Holding incumbents accountable in English local governments. Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1273–1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Apley (Ed.) Adaptation level theory. A symposium (pp. 287–302). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, E. W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Claggett, W. (1986). A reexamination of the asymmetry hypothesis: Economic expansions, contractions, and congressional elections. Western Political Quarterly, 39(4), 623–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34.MathSciNetCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. DNES (2011). Danish national election study 2011. www.valgprojektet.dk.
  18. Dorussen, H., & Palmer, H. D. (2002). The context of economic voting—an introduction. In H. Dorussen & M. Taylor (Eds.), Economic voting (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  20. Duch, R. M., & Stevenson, R. (2008). Voting in context: How political and economic institutions condition election results. Cambridge: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duch, R. M., & Stevenson, R. (2010). The global economy, competency, and the economic vote. Journal of Politics, 72(1), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilardi, F. (2010). Who learns from what in policy diffusion processes? American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 650–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goul Andersen, J. (2013). Den økonomiske udvikling op til 2011-valget. In R. Stubager, K. M. Hansen & J. Goul Andersen (eds.) Krisevalg - Økonomien og folketingsvalget 2011 (pp. 45–59). Copenhagen: DJØF-forlag.Google Scholar
  25. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hansen, K. M., & Bech, M. (2007). De sociotropiske vælgere: Ønsket om stigende beskæftigelse betyder mere end hvem der bliver statsminister og vælgerne kan ikke købes med lønstigninger. Politica, 39(1), 67–86.Google Scholar
  27. Hansen, K. M., & Bech, M. (2012). Forcing voters to choose by using discrete choice experiments to estimate political preferences. Working Paper no. 2012-3. Centre for Parties and Voting, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  28. Hansen, K. M., & Goul Andersen, J. (2013). En samlet model for partivalg. In Stubager, R., K. M. Hansen & J. Goul Andersen (Eds.) Krisevalg - Økonomien og folketingsvalget 2011 (pp. 189–212). Copenhagen: DJØF-forlag.Google Scholar
  29. Headrick, B., & Lanoue, D. J. (1991). Attention, asymmetry, and government popularity in britain. Political Research Quarterly, 44(1), 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2013). Retrospective voting reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hellwig, T. T. (2001). Interdependence, government constraints, and economic voting. Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1141–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hellwig, T. T., & Samuels, D. (2007). Voting in open economies: The electoral consequences of globalization. Comparative Political Studies, 40(3), 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hopkins, D. J. (2011). Whose economy? Perceptions of national economic performance during unequal growth. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(1), 50–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huber, G. A., Hill, S. J., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Sources of bias in retrospective decision making: Experimental evidence on voters’ limitations in controlling incumbents. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 720–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson, T. R. (2007). Discrete choice models for ordinal response variables: A generalization of the stereotype model. Psychometrika, 72(4), 489–504.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Kappe, R. (2013). Asymmetric evaluations: Government popularity and economic performance in the United Kingdom. Paper presented at the EPOP conference, Lancaster University, UK.Google Scholar
  39. Kayser, M. A., & Peress, M. (2012). Benchmarking across Borders: Electoral accountability and the necessity of comparison. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 661–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kiewiet, D. R. (1983). Macroeconomic and micropolitics: The electoral effects of economic issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kiewiet, D. R., & Lewis-Beck, M. S. (2012). No man is an Island: Self-interest, the public interest, and sociotropic voting. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 23(3), 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 129–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kramer, G. (1983). The ecological fallacy revisited: Aggregate- versus individual-level findings on economics and elections, and sociotropic voting. American Political Science Review, 77(1), 92–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuhfeld, W. F. (2005). Marketing research methods in sas: Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. SAS Institute, SAS 9.1 Edition, TS-722.Google Scholar
  45. Lanoue, D. J. (1987). Economic prosperity and presidential popularity: Sorting out the effects. Western Political Quarterly, 40(2), 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lau, R. R. (1982). Negativity in political perception. Political Behavior, 4(4), 353–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lau, R. R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29(1), 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Levy, J. S. (2003). Applications of prospect theory to political science. Synthese, 135(2), 215–241.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1988). Economics and the American voter: past, present, future. Political Behavior, 10(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Paldam, M. (2000). Economic voting: An introduction. Electoral Studies, 19(2–3), 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Stegmaier, M. (2013). The VP-function revisited: a survey of the literature on vote and popularity functions after over 40 years. Public Choice, 157(3–4), 367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Linos, K. (2011). Diffusion through democracy. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 678–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods—analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lyubomirsky, S., & Ross, L. (1997). Hedonic consequences of social comparison: a contrast of happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1141–1157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. McDermott, R. (2004). Theory in political science: Gains and losses from the first decade. Political Psychology, 25(2), 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McDermott, R., Fowler, J. H., & Smirnov, O. (2008). On the evolutionary origin of prospect theory preferences. The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  58. Michelitch, K., Morales, M. A., Tucker, J., & Owen, A. (2012). Looking to the future: Prospective economic voting in 2008 presidential elections. Electoral Studies, 31(4), 838–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mueller, J. E. (1973). War, presidents and public opinion. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  60. Mussweiler, T., & Epstude, K. (2009). Relatively fast! Efficiency advantages of comparative thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mussweiler, T., & Posten, A. (2011). Relatively certain! Comparative thinking reduces uncertainty. Cognition, 122(2012), 236–240.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Mutz, D., & Mondak, J. J. (1997). Dimensions of sociotropic behavior: Group-based judgments of fairness and well-being. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 284–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nannestad, P., & Paldam, M. (1997). The grievance asymmetry revisited: A micro study of economic voting in Denmark, 1986–92. European Journal of Political Economy, 13(1), 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Norpoth, H. (1996). Presidents and the prospective voter. Journal of Politics, 58(3), 776–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Olsen, A. L. (2013). Compared to What? Experimental evidence on social and historical reference points in performance evaluation. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Association Meeting. Panel: Political Bias, Misinformation, and Conspiracy Theories. Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  66. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ryan, M., & Gerard, K. (2003). Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: Current practice and future research reflections. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2(1), 55–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Salmon, P. (1987). Decentralisation as an incentive scheme. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 3(2), 24–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sanders, D. (2000). The real economy and the perceived economy in popularity functions: how much do voters need to know? A study of British data, 1974–1997. Electoral Studies, 19(2), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Singer, M. M., & Carlin, R. E. (2013). Context counts: The election cycle, development, and the nature of economic voting. Journal of Politics, 75(3), 730–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Soroka, S. N. (2006). Good news and bad news: Asymmetric responses to economic information. The Journal of Politics, 68(2), 372–385.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stark, O., & Taylor, J. E. (1989). Relative deprivation and international migration. Demography, 26(1), 1–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Stubager, R., Botterill, N. W., Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Nadeau, R. (2014). Scope conditions of economic voting: The Danish exception? Electoral Studies, 34(1), 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stubager, R., Hansen, K. M., & Goul Andersen, J. (Eds.). (2013). Krisevalg - Økonomien og folketingsvalget 2011. Copenhagen: DJØF-forlag.Google Scholar
  75. Train, K. E. (1986). Qualitative choice analysis: Theory, econometrics, and an application to automobile. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  76. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. van der Brug, W., van der Eijk, C., & Franklin, M. (2007). The economy and the vote: Economic conditions and elections in fifteen countries. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. van der Eijk, C., van der Brug, W., Kroh, M., & Franklin, M. (2006). Rethinking the dependent variable in voting behavior: On the measurement and analysis of electoral utilities. Electoral Studies, 25(3), 424–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vavreck, L. (2009). The message matters—the economy and presidential campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vermeir, J., & Heyndels, B. (2006). Tax policy and yardstick voting in Flemish municipal elections. Applied Economics, 38(19), 2285–2298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wittink, D. R., & Cattin, P. (1989). Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kasper M. Hansen
    • 1
  • Asmus L. Olsen
    • 1
  • Mickael Bech
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen KDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Business and EconomicsUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations