French Politics

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 443–459 | Cite as

Mass media and the attribution of blame for globalization

Original Article

Abstract

Much is known about the domestic politics of globalization, but political scientists have largely ignored one critical link between the international economy and many individuals around the world: mass media. Considering the likely effects of mass media on public perceptions of responsibility, this article develops an argument about the effects of mass media on individuals’ blame attributions for the adjustment costs of economic globalization. The theory is tested on survey data from France in 1992–1993. The evidence suggests that mass media may shift the public’s blame attributions away from the government and toward external, international forces.

Keywords

Media Globalization Blame Public opinion 

Supplementary material

41253_2017_32_MOESM1_ESM.docx (153 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 153 kb)

References

  1. Adserà, Alícia, and Carles Boix. 2002. Trade, democracy, and the size of the public sector: The political underpinnings of openness. International Organization 56 (2): 229–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcañiz, Isabella, and Timothy Hellwig. 2010. Who’s to blame? The distribution of responsibility in developing democracies. British Journal of Political Science 41 (2): 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ancelovici, Marcos. 2002. Organizing against globalization: The case of ATTAC in France. Politics & Society 30 (3): 427–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arceneaux, Kevin. 2003. The conditional impact of blame attribution on the relationship between economic adversity and turnout. Political Research Quarterly 56 (1): 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, Andy. 2003. Why is trade reform so popular in Latin America? A consumption-based theory of trade policy preferences. World Politics 55 (3): 423–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, Andy. 2005. Who wants to globalize? Consumer tastes and labor markets in a theory of trade policy beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 49 (4): 924–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, Andy. 2009. The market and the masses in Latin America: Policy reform and consumption in liberalizing economies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, W. Lance. 1990. Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. International Studies Quarterly 40 (2): 103–127.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, W. Lance, Regina G. Lawrence, and Steven Livingston. 2006. None dare call it torture: Indexing and the limits of press independence in the Abu Ghraib Scandal. International Studies Quarterly 56 (3): 467–485.Google Scholar
  10. Benson, Rodney. 2009. What makes news more multiperspectival? A field analysis. Poetics 37 (5–6): 402–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benson, Rodney, and Daniel C. Hallin. 2007. How states, markets and globalization shape the news. European Journal of Communication 22 (1): 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berger, Suzanne. 2000. Globalization and politics. Annual Review of Political Science 3 (1): 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chrique, Philippe. 1997. Legidoscope: Trend surveys of french public opinion and media usage, September 1992May 1993. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) [distributor]. doi:10.3886/ICPSR06826.v1.
  14. Desbos, Clément, and Frédéric Royall. 2011. Globalization and political posturing on the left in France in the 1990s. French Politics 9 (2): 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrett, Geoffrey. 1995. Capital mobility, trade, and the domestic politics of economic policy. International Organization 49 (4): 657–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gourevitch, Peter. 1978. The second image reversed: The international sources of domestic politics. International Organization 32 (4): 881–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guisinger, Alexandra. 2009. Determining trade policy: Do voters hold politicians accountable? International Organization 63 (3): 533–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hay, Colin. 2002. Globalisation as a problem of political analysis: Restoring agents to a ‘process without a subject’ and politics to a logic of economic compulsion. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 15 (3): 379–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hay, Colin, and Ben Rosamond. 2002. Globalization, European integration and the discursive construction of economic imperatives. Journal of European Public Policy 9 (2): 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hay, Colin, and Nicola Smith. 2005. Horses for courses? The political discourse of globalisation and European integration in the UK and Ireland. West European Politics 28 (1): 124–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hays, Jude C., Sean D. Ehrlich, and Clint Peinhardt. 2005. Government spending and public support for trade in the OECD: An empirical test of the embedded liberalism thesis. International Organization 59 (2): 473–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hellwig, T., and D. Samuels. 2007. Voting in open economies: The electoral consequences of globalization. Comparative Political Studies 40 (3): 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hellwig, Timothy. 2007. Globalization and perceptions of policy maker competence: Evidence from France. Political Research Quarterly 60 (1): 146–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hellwig, Timothy. 2008. Globalization, policy constraints, and vote choice. The Journal of Politics 70 (4): 1128–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hellwig, Timothy. 2014. Globalization and mass politics: Retaining the room to maneuver. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hellwig, Timothy, and Eva Coffey. 2011. Public opinion, party messages, and responsibility for the financial crisis in Britain. Electoral Studies 30 (3): 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hood, Christopher. 2002. The risk game and the blame game. Government and Opposition 37 (1): 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Imai, Kosuke, Gary King, and Olivia Lau. 2009. Zelig: Everyone’s Statistical Software. http://gking.harvard.edu/zelig.
  29. Iyengar, Shanto. 1987. Television news and citizens’ explanations of national affairs. The American Political Science Review 81 (3): 815–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacobson, Gary C., and Samuel Kernell. 1983. Strategy and choice in congressional elections, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Katzenstein, Peter J. 1985. Small states in world markets: Industrial policy in Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kayser, Mark Andreas. 2007. How domestic is domestic politics? Globalization and elections. Annual Review of Political Science 10 (1): 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McGraw, Kathleen M. 1990. Avoiding blame: An experimental investigation of political excuses and justifications. British Journal of Political Science 20 (1): 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGraw, Kathleen M. 1991. Managing blame: An experimental test of the effects of political accounts. American Political Science Review 85 (4): 1133–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGraw, Kathleen M., Samuel Best, and Richard Timpone. 1995. ‘What they say or what they do?’ The impact of elite explanation and policy outcomes on public opinion. American Journal of Political Science 39 (1): 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mutz, Diana C. 1992. Mass media and the depoliticization of personal experience. American Journal of Political Science 36 (2): 483–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mutz, Diana C. 1994. Contextualizing personal experience: The role of mass media. The Journal of Politics 56 (3): 689–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Norris, Pippa. 2000. Virtuous circle. Political communications in postindustrial societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oatley, Thomas. 2011. The reductionist gamble: Open economy politics in the global economy. International Organization 65 (2): 311–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time, 2nd ed. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  42. Putnam, Robert D. 1995. Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics 28 (4): 664–683.Google Scholar
  43. Rodrik, Dani. 1998. Why do more open economies have bigger governments? Journal of Political Economy 106 (5): 997–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruggie, John Gerard. 1982. International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. International Organization 36 (2): 379–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sattler, Thomas, John R. Freeman, and Patrick T. Brandt. 2008. Political accountability and the room to maneuver: A search for a causal chain. Comparative Political Studies 41 (9): 1212–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sattler, Thomas, Patrick T. Brandt, and John R. Freeman. 2010. Democratic accountability in open economies. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5 (1): 71–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2007. Trapped by their ideas: French Élites’ discourses of European integration and globalization. Journal of European Public Policy 14 (7): 992–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Walter, Stefanie. 2010. Globalization and the welfare state: Testing the microfoundations of the compensation hypothesis. International Studies Quarterly 54 (2): 403–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weaver, R. Kent. 1986. The politics of blame avoidance. Journal of Public Policy 6 (4): 371–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zaller, John, and Dennis Chiu. 1996. Government’s little helper: U.S. Press Coverage of Foreign Policy Crises, 1945–1991. Political Communication 13 (4): 385–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and International RelationsUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations