Acta Politica

, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 121–148 | Cite as

Economic and corruption voting in a predominant party system: The case of Turkey

  • Yasushi HazamaEmail author
Original Article


Voting behavior studies have paid scarce attention to the predominant party system (PPS), in which one party has won three consecutive legislative majorities, despite the fact that nearly half of the world democracies have had a PPS. It is often unclear why a large portion of voters prefer the same party over a long period of time. We propose two hypotheses to address the question. First, since PPSs often thrive when economic performance is strong, the long-term economic success of the incumbent party produces a “halo effect” that renders voters insensitive to short-term economic changes. Second, voters blame the incumbent party for the corruption of politicians only, and not for bureaucratic corruption. The current Turkish government initially established its wide electoral support on the basis of its economic performance, which gave rise to a PPS in 2011. However, the Turkish government has been tarnished in recent years by corruption allegations, especially since 2013. This paper applies a three-choice multinomial logit model to 2014 survey data to examine voter preference between the incumbent party, opposition parties, and neither in Turkey under its PPS. The results supported both hypotheses.


voting predominant party system economy corruption Turkey 



The author is greatly indebted to KONDA for all its support for this research, including graciously sharing its valuable dataset with the author. Many thanks also go to the two anonymous referees of the journal for their invaluable comments and suggestions.


  1. Akarca, A.T. and Tansel, A. (2006) Economic performance and political outcomes: An analysis of the Turkish parliamentary and local election results between 1950 and 2004. Public Choice 129(1/2): 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, L.E. (2009) The problem of single-party predominance in an unconsolidated democracy: The example of Argentina. Perspectives on Politics 7(4): 767–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, C.J. and Ishii, J. (1997) The political economy of election outcomes in Japan. British Journal of Political Science 27(4): 619–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, C.J., Mendes, S.M. and Tverdova, Y.V. (2004) Endogenous economic voting: Evidence from the 1997 British election. Electoral Studies 23(4): 683–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arceneaux, K. (2003) The conditional impact of blame attribution on the relationship between economic adversity and turnout. Political Research Quarterly 56(1): 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aronoff, M.J. (1990) Israel under Labor and the Likud: The role of dominance considered. In T. J. Pempel (Ed.), Uncommon democracies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ayan Musil, P. (2014) Emergence of a dominant party system after multipartyism: Theoretical implications from the case of the AKP in Turkey. South European Society and Politics 20(1): 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baslevent, C., Kirmanoglu, H. and Senatalar, B. (2005). Empirical investigation of party preferences and economic voting in Turkey. European Journal of Political Research 44(4): 547–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baslevent, C., Kirmanoglu, H. and Senatalar, B. (2009). Party preferences and economic voting in Turkey (now that the crisis is over). Party Politics 15(3): 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bellucci, P. (2012) Government accountability and voting choice in Italy, 1990–2008. Electoral Studies 31(3): 491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benton, A.L. (2005) Dissatisfied democrats or retrospective voters?: Economic hardship, political institutions, and voting behavior in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies 38(4): 417–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Çarkoğlu, A. (2008) Ideology or economic pragmatism?: Profiling Turkish voters in 2007. Turkish Studies 9(2): 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Çarkoğlu, A. (2011) Turkey’s 2011 general elections—towards a dominant party system? Insight Turkey 13(3): 43–62.Google Scholar
  14. Çarkoğlu, A. (2012) Economic evaluations vs. ideology: Diagnosing the sources of electoral change in Turkey, 2002–2011. Electoral Studies 31(3): 513–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Çarkoğlu, A. (2014a) One down, two more to go—electoral trends in the aftermath of the march 2014 municipality elections. Insight Turkey 16(2): 99–109.Google Scholar
  16. Çarkoğlu, A. (2014b) Plus ça Change Plus C’est la Même Chose: Consolidation of the AKP’s predominance in the march 2014 local elections in Turkey. South European Society and Politics 19(2): 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Çarkoğlu, A. and Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2007) Turkish democracy today: elections, protest and stability in an Islamic society. London: I. B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  18. Chang, E.C.C., Golden, M.A. and Hill, S.J. (2010). Legislative malfeasance and political accountability. World Politics 62(02): 177–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clarke, H. D. (2004) Political choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clarke, H.D., Sanders, D. Stewart, M.C. and Whiteley, P.F. (2009) Performance politics and the British voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Costas-Pérez, E., Solé-Ollé, A. and Sorribas-Navarro, P. (2012) Corruption scandals, voter information, and accountability. European Journal of Political Economy 28(4): 469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duch, R. M. (2001) A developmental model of heterogeneous economic voting in new democracies. The American Political Science Review 95(4): 895–910.Google Scholar
  23. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) Single-party dominance in Sweden: The saga of social democracy. In T. J. Pempel (Ed.), Uncommon democracies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Evans, G. and Andersen, R. (2006) The political conditioning of economic perceptions. The Journal of Politics 68(1): 194–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evans, G. and Pickup, M. (2010) Reversing the causal arrow: The political conditioning of economic perceptions in the 2000–2004 US presidential election cycle. The Journal of Politics 72(4): 1236–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fagerland, M.W. and Hosmer, D.W. (2012) A generalized Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test for multinomial logistic regression models. Stata Journal 12(3): 447–453.Google Scholar
  27. Ferraz, C. and Finan, F. (2008) Exposing corrupt politicians: The effects of Brazil’s publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 123(2): 703–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freire, A. and Santana-Pereira, J. (2012) Economic voting in Portugal, 2002–2009. Electoral Studies 31(3): 506–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gidengil, E. and Karakoç, E. (2014) Which matters more in the electoral success of Islamist (successor) parties—religion or performance? The Turkish case. Party Politics 22(3): 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gumuscu, S. (2013) The emerging predominant party system in Turkey. Government and Opposition 48(02): 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hazama, Y. (2007) Electoral volatility in Turkey. Chiba: Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization.Google Scholar
  32. Heper, M. (1985) The state tradition in Turkey. Beverley: Eothen Press.Google Scholar
  33. Heper, M. and Criss, B. (2009) Historical dictionary of Turkey. Lanham: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  34. IPSOS Sosyal Araştırmalar Enstitüsü. (2015) “2015 Genel Seçim Sandık Sonrası Araştırması.”Google Scholar
  35. Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2010) Justice and development party at the helm: Resurgence of Islam or restitution of the right-of-center predominant party? Turkish Studies 11(1): 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2012) Kulturkampf in Turkey: The constitutional referendum of 12 September 2010. South European Society and Politics 17(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kelly, J. M. (2003). Counting on the past or investing in the future? Economic and political accountability in Fujimori's Peru. The Journal of Politics 65(3): 864–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Klašnja, M., J.A. Tucker and K. Deegan-Krause. (2014) Pocketbook vs. sociotropic corruption voting. British Journal of Political Science FirstView(Supplement -1):1–28.Google Scholar
  39. Klašnja, M. and Tucker, J.A. (2013) The economy, corruption, and the vote: Evidence from experiments in Sweden and Moldova. Electoral Studies 32(3): 536–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klesner, J. L. (2004) The structure of the Mexican Electorate: Social, attitudinal, and partisan bases of Vicente Fox's victory. In Jorge I. Domínguez and Chappell H. Lawson (Eds.), Mexico's Pivotal Democratic Election. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lewis-Beck, M.S. (2006) Does economics still matter? econometrics and the vote. The Journal of Politics 68(1): 208–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lewis-Beck, M.S. and Stegmaier, M. (2007) Economic models of the vote. In J. Russell Dalton & H. D. Klingemann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lewis-Beck, M.S. and Nadeau, R. (2011) Economic voting theory: Testing new dimensions. Electoral Studies, 30(2), 288–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lewis-Beck, M.S. and Nadeau, R. (2012) PIGS or not? economic voting in Southern Europe. Electoral Studies 31(3): 472–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lewis-Beck, M.S. and Paldam, M. (2000) Economic voting: An introduction. Electoral Studies 19(2–3): 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lewis-Beck, M.S. and Stegmaier, M. (2009) American voter to economic voter: Evolution of an idea. Electoral Studies 28(4): 625–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lewis-Beck, M.S. and 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
  48. Lewis-Beck, M.S., Nadeau, R. and Elias, A. (2008) Economics, party, and the vote: Causality issues and panel data. American Journal of Political Science 52(1): 84–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lindberg, S.I. and Jones, J. (2010) Laying a foundation for democracy or undermining it? dominant parties in Africa’s burgeoning democracies. In Matthijs Bogaards & Francoise Boucek (Eds.), Dominant political parties and democracy: Concepts, measures, cases, and comparisons. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Manzetti, L. and Wilson, C.J. (2007) Why do corrupt governments maintain public support? Comparative Political Studies 40(8): 949–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. MetroPOLL Stratejik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Merkezi A.S. (2015) “Türkiye’nin Nabzı Haziran 2015: Seçim Sonuçları ve Koalisyon Seçenekleriyle Siyasette Yeni Dönemin Gündemi.”Google Scholar
  52. Molina, J. (2001) The electoral effect of underdevelopment: government turnover and its causes in Latin-American. Caribbean and industrialized countries. Electoral Studies 20(3): 427–446.Google Scholar
  53. Munyar, V. (2015) 3 yıldır ekonomide patinaj yapıyoruz. Istanbul: In Hürriyet.Google Scholar
  54. Muramatsu, M. and Krauss, E.S. (1990) Dominant party and social coalitions in Japan. In T. J. Pempel (Ed.), Uncommon democracies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Nadeau, R., Lewis-Beck, M.S. and Bélanger, É. (2013) Economics and elections revisited. Comparative Political Studies 46(5), 551–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nannestad, P. and Paldam, M. (1994) The VP-function: A survey of the literature on vote and popularity functions after 25 years. Public Choice 79(3/4): 213–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nannestad, P. and Paldam, M. (2002) The cost of ruling: A foundation stone for two theories. In Han Dorussen & Michaell Taylor (Eds.), Economic voting. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Nwokora, Z. and Pelizzo, R. (2014) Sartori reconsidered: Toward a new predominant party system. Political Studies 62(4): 824–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Owen, A. and Tucker, J.A. (2010) Past is still present: Micro-level comparisons of conventional vs. transitional economic voting in three Polish elections. Electoral Studies 29(1): 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Özbudun, E. (2000) Contemporary Turkish politics. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  61. Özbudun, E. (2014) AKP at the Crossroads: Erdoğan’s Majoritarian Drift. South European Society and Politics 19(2): 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pacek, A. and Radcliff, B. (1995) The political economy of competitive elections in the developing world. American Journal of Political Science 39(3): 745–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pempel, T.J. (1990). Conclusion: One-party dominance and the creation of regimes. In T. J. Pempel (Ed.), Uncommon democracies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Poire, A. (1999) Retrospective voting, partisanship, and loyalty in presidential elections: 1994. In Jorge I. Dominguez and Alejandro Poire (Eds.), Toward Mexico's Democratization. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Remmer, K.L. (1991). The political impact of economic crisis in Latin America in the 1980s. The American Political Science Review 85(3): 777–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roberts, K. M. and Wibbels, E. (1999) Party systems and electoral volatility in Latin America: A test of economic, institutional, and structural explanations. The American Political Science Review 93(3): 575–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rose, R. (2008) Turkish voters and losers’ consent. Turkish Studies 9(2): 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sanders, D. and Carey, S. (2002) Temporal variations in economic voting: A comparative cross-national analysis. In Han Dorussen & Michaell Taylor (Eds.), economic voting. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Sartori, G. (1976) Parties and party systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Sayari, S. (2007) Towards a new Turkish party system? Turkish Studies 8(2): 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schleiter, P. and Voznaya, A.M. (2014). Party system competitiveness and corruption. Party Politics 20(5): 675–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shalev, M. (1990) The political economy of labor-pary dominance and decline in Israel. In T. J. Pempel (Ed.), Uncommon democracies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Singer, M.M. (2011) Who says “It’s the economy”? cross-national and cross-individual variation in the salience of economic performance. Comparative Political Studies 44(3): 284–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Singer, M.M. and R.E. Carlin. (2013) Context counts: The election cycle, development, and the nature of economic voting. The Journal of Politics forthcoming.Google Scholar
  75. Stegmaier, M., and Norpoth, H. (2013) Election Forecasting. Oxford Bibliographies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stephenson, C.B. (1979) Probability sampling with quotas: An Experiment. The Public Opinion Quarterly 43(4): 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sudman, S. (1966) Probability sampling with quotas. Journal of the American Statistical Association 61(315): 749–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tavits, M. (2007) Clarity of responsibility and corruption. American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 218–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tillman, E.R. (2008) Economic judgments, party choice, and voter abstention in cross-national perspective. Comparative Political Studies 41(9): 1290–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Toros, E. (2011) Forecasting elections in Turkey. International Journal of Forecasting 27(4): 1248–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Uppal, Y. (2009) The disadvantaged incumbents: Estimating incumbency effects in Indian state legislatures. Public Choice 138(1/2): 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Welch, S. and Hibbing, J.R. (1997) The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections, 1982–1990. The Journal of Politics 59(1): 226–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Weschle, S. (2014) Two types of economic voting: How economic conditions jointly affect vote choice and turnout. Electoral Studies 34, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Winters, M.S. and Weitz-Shapiro, R. (2013) Lacking information or condoning corruption: When do voters support corrupt politicians? Comparative Politics 45(4): 418–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Weyland, K. (2003) Economic voting reconsidered: Crisis and charisma in the election of Hugo Chavez. Comparative Political Studies 36(7): 822–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yavuz, M.H. (2006) The emergence of a new Turkey. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  87. Yavuz, M.H. (2009) Secularism and muslim democracy in Turkey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Youde, J. (2005) Economics and government popularity in Ghana. Electoral Studies 24(1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zechmeister, E.J. and Zizumbo-Colunga, D. (2013) The varying political toll of concerns about corruption in good versus bad economic times. Comparative Political Studies 46(10): 1190–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zürcher, E.J. (2010) The young Turk legacy and nation building: from the ottoman empire to Atatürk’s Turkey. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Developing Economies-JETROChibaJapan

Personalised recommendations