Advertisement

Die Salienz von Sachthemen im internationalen Vergleich: Zurück zu „It’s the economy, stupid“ während der Krise?

  • Nathalie Giger
  • Denise Traber
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Wir untersuchen in diesem Beitrag die Salienz von Wirtschaftsthemen, die eine wichtige Vorbedingung für ökonomisches Wählen darstellen. Während die jüngere Forschung zeigt, dass wirtschaftliche Themen bei der Bevölkerung nur eine mäßige Wichtigkeit haben, postulieren wir zunächst, dass diese Salienz während der Wirtschaft- und Eurokrise zugenommen hat. Wir können zeigen, dass sich die Salienz von Wirtschaftsthemen zwischen 2008 und 2013 in beinahe allen 14 Ländern in unserer Stichprobe stark erhöht hat. Bei anderen Themen, z. B Immigration, finden wir nicht das gleiche Muster. Weiter können wir für einen exemplarischen Fall (Großbritannien 2010) zeigen, dass neben der Salienz von Wirtschaftsthemen auch die persönliche Betroffenheit sowie die Zuschreibung von politischer Verantwortlichkeit während der Krise eine wichtige Rolle für das Wahlverhalten spielen.

Schlüsselwörter

Salienz Wirtschaftsthemen Wirtschafts- und Eurokrise Ökonomisches Wählen Vergleichende Analyse Persönliche Betroffenheit Zuschreibung von politischer Verantwortung 

Literatur

  1. Aldrich, John H., John L. Sullivan, und Eugene Borgida. 1989. Foreign affairs and issue voting: Do presidential candidates „Waltz Before A Blind Audience?“. The American Political Science Review 83:123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez, Michael R., Jonathan Nagler, und Jennifer R. Willette. 2000. Measuring the relative impact of issues and the economy in democratic elections. Electoral Studies 19:237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, Christopher J. 2000. Economic voting and political context: A comparative perspective. Electoral Studies 19:151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, Christopher J. 2007. The end of economic voting? Contingency dilemmas and the limits of democratic accountability. Annual Review of Political Science 10:271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, Christopher J., und Jason D. Hecht. 2012. Voting when the economy goes bad, everyone is in charge, and no one is to blame: The case of the 2009 German election. Electoral Studies 31:5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartels, Larry M. 2014. Ideology and Retrospection. In Electoral responses to the great recession, Hrsg. Nancy Bermeo und Larry M. Bartels, 185–223. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bélanger, Éric, und Bonnie M. Meguid. 2008. Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies 27:477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costa Lobo, Marina, und Michael S. Lewis-Beck. 2012. The integration hypothesis: How the European Union shapes economic voting. Electoral Studies 31:522–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Vries, Catherine, und Nathalie Giger. 2014. Holding governments accountable? Individual heterogeneity in performance voting. European Journal of Political Research 53:345–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dorussen, Han, und Michaell Taylor. 2002. Group economic voting: A comparison of the Netherlands and Germany. In Economic voting, Hrsg. Han Dorussen und Michaell Taylor, 92–120. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Duch, Raymond M., und Iñaki Sagarzazu. 2014. Crisis perceptions and economic voting among the rich and the poor: The United Kingdom and Germany. In Electoral responses to the great recession, Hrsg. Nancy Bermeo und Larry M. Bartels, 224–266. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Duch, Raymond M., und Randolph T. Stevenson. 2008. The economic vote: How political and economic institutions condition election results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans, Geoffrey, und Robert Anderson. 2006. The political conditioning of economic perceptions. The Journal of Politics 68:194–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans, Geoffrey, und Mark Pickup. 2010. Reversing the causal arrow: The political conditioning of economic perceptions in the 2000–2004 US presidential election cycle. The Journal of Politics 72:1236–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fazio, Russell H. 1986. How do attitudes guide behavior? In Handbook of motivation and cognition. foundations of social behavior, Hrsg. Richard M. Sorrentino und E. Tory Higgins, 204–243. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fossati, Diego. 2014. Economic vulnerability and economic voting in 14 OECD countries. European Journal of Political Research 53:116–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fournier, Patrick, André Blais, Richard Nadeau, Elisabeth Gidengil, und Nei Nevitte. 2003. Issue importance and performance voting. Political Behavior 25:51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fraile, Marta, und Michael S. Lewis-Beck. 2014. Economic vote instability: Endogeneity or restricted variance? Spanish panel evidence from 2008 and 2011. European Journal of Political Research 53:160–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giger, Nathalie. 2011. The risk of social policy? The electoral consequences of welfare state retrenchment and social policy performance in OECD countries. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Gomez, Brad T., und Matthew J. Wilson. 2006. Cognitive heterogeneity and economic voting: A comparative analysis of four democratic electorates. American Journal of Political Science 50:127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Green, Jane, und Sara B. Hobolt. 2008. Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies 27:460–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hellwig, Timothy T. 2001. Interdependence, government constraints, and economic voting. The Journal of Politics 63:1141–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kellermann, Charlotte, und Hans Rattinger. 2006. Economic conditions, unemployment and perceived government accountability. German Politics 15:460–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Key, Valdimer O. 1966. The responsible electorate. Rationality in presidential voting, 1936–1960. New York: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kiewiet, Roderick D. 1983. Macroeconomics and micropolitics: The electoral effects of economic issues. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2014. The political consequences of the economic crisis in Europe: Electoral punishment and popular protest. In Electoral responses to the great recession, Hrsg. Nancy Bermeo und Larry M. Bartels, 297–333. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Krosnick, Jon A. 1990. Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior 12:59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krosnick, Jon A., und Donald R. Kinder. 1990. Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review 84:497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lavine, Howard, John L. Sullivan, Eugene Borgida, und Cynthia J. Thomas. 1996. The relationship of national and personal issue salience to attitude accessibility on foreign and domestic policy issues. Political Psychology 17:293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis-Beck, Michael S., und Martin Paldam. 2000. Economic voting: An introduction. Electoral Studies 19:113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis-Beck, Michael S., und Mary Stegmaier. 2007. Economic models of the vote. In Oxford Handbook of political behavior, Hrsg. Russell J. Dalton und Hans-Dieter Klingemann, 518–537. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Marsh, Michael, und Slava Mikhaylov. 2012. Economic voting in a crisis: The Irish election of 2011. Electoral Studies 31:478–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, Joanne M., und Jon A. Krosnick. 2000. News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science 44:301–315.Google Scholar
  35. Nadeau, Richard, Richard G. Niemi, und Antoine Yoshinaka. 2002. A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context across time and nations. Electoral Studies 21:403–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nezi, Roula. 2012. Economic voting under the economic crisis: Evidence from Greece. Electoral Studies 31:498–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paldam, Martin. 1991. How robust is the vote function? A study of seventeen nations over four decades. In Economics and politics: The calculus of support, Hrsg. Helmut Norpoth, Michael S. Lewis-Beck, und Jean-Dominique Lafay, 9–31. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Palmer, D. Harvey, und Guy D. Whitten. 2011. Through thick and thin? The dynamics of government support across income groups during economic crises, Electoral Studies 30:427–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Powell, Jr. G. Bingham, und Guy D. Whitten. 1993. A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science 2:391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rattinger, Hans, und Markus Steinbrecher. 2011. Economic voting in times of economic crisis. German Politics 20:128–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rudolph, Thomas J. 2003. Who’s responsible for the economy? The formation and consequences of responsibility attributions. American Journal of Political Science 47:698–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Singer, Matthew M. 2011a. Who Says „It’s the Economy“? Cross-National and Cross-Individual Variation in the Salience of Economic Performance. Comparative Political Studies 44:284–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singer, Matthew M. 2011b. When do voters actually think „It’s the Economy“? Evidence from the 2008 presidential campaign. Electoral Studies 30:621–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Singer, Matthew M. 2013. What goes around comes around: Perceived vulnerable employment and economic voting in developing countries. European Journal of Political Research 52:143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wlezien, Christopher. 2005. On the salience of political issues: The problem with ‚most important problem‘. Electoral Studies 24:555–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departement für Politikwissenschaft und Internationale BeziehungenUniversität GenfGenfSchweiz
  2. 2.Institut für PolitikwissenschaftUniversität ZürichZürichSchweiz

Personalised recommendations