Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T00:04:59.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Causality in the Study of Valence and Voting Behavior: An Introduction to the Symposium*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2015

Christopher Wlezien
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evans and Chzhen (2016a) challenge Clarke et al.’s (Clarke et al. 2004; Clarke et al. 2009) “valence” model of voting behavior in British elections. Specifically, they take issue with results based on individual-level analyses relating subjective performance assessments to the (self-reported) vote measured concurrently. The argument is a basic one: there is reason to think that evaluations of performance are caused by—and not causes of—the vote. That this may be true is supported by a large and growing body of research in political science, much of which focuses on economic voting (e.g., Campbell et al. 1960; Kramer 1983; Wlezien et al. 1997; Bartels 2002; Anderson, Mendes and Tverdova 2004; Evans and Andersen 2006; Ladner and Wlezien 2007; Evans and Pickup 2010). Estimates of valence effects in Clarke et al.’s individual-level analyses thus may be correspondingly biased. It is an important issue for the study of valence and also other electoral research relying on perceptual and attitudinal predictors.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 195 - 197
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Christopher Wlezien, Hogg Professor of Government, University of Texas at Austin (Wlezien@austin.utexas.edu). The author thanks Vera Troeger for making him write this article and for her guidance and comments as well, and also Harold Clarke and Geoff Evans for various conversations on the subject over the years, all of which have left their marks.

References

Anderson, Christopher, Mendes, Silvia, and Tverdova, Yuliya. 2004. ‘Endogenous Economic Voting: Evidence from the 1997 British Election’. Electoral Studies 23:683–708.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. ‘Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions’. Political Behavior 24:117–150.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold, Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne, and Whiteley, Paul. 2004. Political Choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold, Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne, and Whiteley, Paul. 2009. Performance Politics and the British Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2012. The Timeline of Presidential Elections: How Campaigns Do (and Do Not) Matter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael, and Stimson, James. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey, and Chzhen, Kat. 2016a. Re-Evaluating the Valence Model of Political Choice’. Political Science and Research and Methods 4:199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey, and Chzhen, Kat. 2016b. Beyond Valence: Estimating Models of Party Choice Without Resort to Ecological Fallacy or Unfounded Causal Assumptions. A Reply to Whiteley, et al’. Political Science and Research and Methods 4:241–247.Google Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey, and Pickup, Mark. 2010. ‘Reversing the Causal Arrow: The Political Conditioning of Economic Perceptions in the 2000-2004 US Presidential Cycle’. Journal of Politics 72:1236–1251.Google Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey, and Andersen, Robert. 2006. ‘The Political Conditioning of Economic Perceptions’. Journal of Politics 68(1):194–207.Google Scholar
Green, Jane, and Jennings, Will. 2012. ‘Issue Competence and Vote Choice for Parties In and Out of Power: An Analysis of Valence in Britain, 1979 – 1997’. European Journal of Political Research 41(4):469–503.Google Scholar
Kayser, Mark, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2011. ‘Performance Pressure: Patterns of Partisanship and the Economic Vote’. European Journal of Political Research 50:365–394.Google Scholar
Kramer, Gerald H. 1983. ‘The Ecological Fallacy Revisited: Aggregate- Versus Individual-level Findings on Economics and Elections, and Sociotropic Voting’. American Political Science Review 77:92–111.Google Scholar
Ladner, Matthew, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2007. ‘Partisan Preferences, Electoral Prospects, and Economic Expectations’. Comparative Political Studies 40:571–596.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael, and Whitten, Guy D.. 2013. ‘Economics and Elections: Effects Deep and Wide, an Introduction’. Electoral Studies 32:393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael, and Stegmaier, Mary. 2000. ‘Economic Determinants of Election Outcomes’. Annual Review of Political Science 3:183–219.Google Scholar
van der Brug, Wouter, van der Eijk, Cees, and Franklin, Mark N.. 2007. The Economy and the Vote. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whiteley, Paul, Clarke, Harold, Sanders, David, and Stewart, Marianne. 2016. ‘Hunting the Snark: A Reply to “Re-Evaluating Valence Models of Political Choice”’. Political Science and Research and Methods 4:221–240.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 2015. ‘The Myopic Voter? The Economy and US Presidential Elections’. Electoral Studies 39(Sept.):195–204.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher, Franklin, Mark, and Twiggs, Daniel. 1997. ‘Economic Perceptions and Vote Choice: Disentangling the Endogeneity’. Political Behavior 19:7–17.Google Scholar