Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:24:09.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Voting, Multilevel Governance and Information in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2008

Cameron D. Anderson
Cameron D. Anderson*
Affiliation:
The University of Western Ontario
*
Cameron D. Anderson, Department of Political Science, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada, N6A 5C2, cander54@uwo.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. While an important component of incumbent support, the effect of economic conditions on vote choice (economic voting) can be undermined by the presence of multilevel institutions; voters are faced with the prospect of evaluating economic conditions and governments at different levels simultaneously. This paper tests the applicability of a model which seeks to account for how and how well voters cope with the complexity of multilevel governance. The accountability-centred model suggests that federal and provincial governments should only be evaluated for those actions and outcomes that they can reasonably be seen to have influence over. Additionally, it is asked whether high information respondents are better able to navigate some of the complexities of Canada's multilevel system. Analyses are conducted using data from the 1993 and 1997 Canadian Election Studies.

Résumé. Les conditions économiques constituent un facteur d'appui électoral important pour les dirigeants politiques. Il semble, toutefois, que l'impact de ce facteur soit amoindri dans les États présentant plusieurs niveaux de gouvernement. Dans les sociétés ayant des institutions multi-paliers, les électeurs ont en effet le défi d'attribuer les performances économiques aux divers paliers de gouvernement. Cet article teste un modèle théorique qui tente d'expliquer comment les électeurs se comportent face à la complexité de la gouvernance multi-paliers au Canada. Le modèle, centré sur la responsabilité des dirigeants, suggère que les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux devraient uniquement être jugés pour les décisions et résultats politiques sur lesquels ils exercent manifestement une influence. Cet article examine, en outre, la question de savoir si les électeurs bien informés saisissent mieux la complexité de la gouvernance multi-paliers lorsqu'ils évaluent la performance des dirigeants. L'analyse se fonde sur les données de l'Étude électorale canadienne de 1993 et de 1997.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 329 - 354
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2008

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.)

References

Abramowitz, A. and Segal, J.. 1986. “Determinants of the Outcomes of Senate Elections.” Journal of Politics 48: 433–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, M. 1997. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C.D. 2006. “Economic Voting and Multilevel Governance: A Comparative Individual-Level Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (2): 449–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C.J. 1995. Blaming the Government: Citizens and the Economy in Five European Democracies. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar
Anderson, C.J. 2000. “Economic Voting and Political Context: A Comparative Perspective.” Electoral Studies 19: 151–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C.J., Mendes, S., Tverdova, Y. and Kim, H.. 2004. “Endogenous Economic Voting: Evidence from the 1997 British Election.” Electoral Studies 23 (4): 683–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkeson, L. and Partin, R.. 1995. “Economic and Referendum Voting: A Comparison of Gubernatorial and Senatorial Elections.” American Political Science Review 89 (1): 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A. 2006. “Accounting for the Electoral Success of the Liberal Party in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 38 (4): 821–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Nadeau, R. and Nevitte, N.. 2002a. Anatomy of a Liberal Victory: Making Sense of the Vote in the 2000 Canadian Election. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Nadeau, R. and Nevitte, N.. 2002b. “Measuring Party Identification: Britain, Canada and the United States.” Political Behavior 23: 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, H. and Sniderman, P.. 1985. “Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning.” American Political Science Review 79: 1061–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. 2007. “Fiscal Federalism: Searching for Balance.” In Canadian Federalism: Performance, Effectiveness, Legitimacy, ed. Bakvis, H. and Skogstad, G.. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carmichael, C. 1990. “Economic Conditions and the Popularity of the Incumbent Party in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 34 (4): 713–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, H. and Kornberg, A.. 1992. “Support for the Canadian Federal Progressive Conservative Party Since 1988: The Impact of Economic Evaluations and Economic Issues.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 25: 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crew, R. and Weiher, G.. 1996. “Gubernatorial Popularity in Three States: A Preliminary Model.” Social Science Journal 33: 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, F. 2004. “Government Responsibility and Electoral Accountability in Federations.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 34 (Spring): 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, R. 1967. Pluralist Democracy in the United States: Conflict and Consent. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, M. and Keeter, S.. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Diaz, A. and Riba, C.. 2002. “Economic Voting in Subnational Government: Catalonian Evidence.” In Economic Voting, ed. Dorussen, H. and Taylor, M.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Evans, G. and Andersen, R.. 2006. “The Political Conditioning of Economic Perceptions.” The Journal of Politics 68 (1): 194–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, M. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fournier, P. 2002. “The Uninformed Canadian Voter.” In Citizen Politics: Research and Theory in Canadian Political Behaviour, ed. Everitt, J. and O'Neill, B.. Don Mills ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gelineau, F. and Belanger, E.. 2005. “Electoral Accountability in a Federal System: National and Provincial Economic Voting in Canada.” Publius 35: 407–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godbout, J.-F. and Belanger, E.. 2002. “La Dimension regionale du vote economique canadien aux elections federale de 1988 a 2000.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 35: 567–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godbout, J.-F. and Belanger, E.. 2007. “Economic Voting and Political Sophistication in the US: A Reassessment.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (3): 541–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, B. and Wilson, J.M.. 2001. “Political Sophistication and Economic Voting in the American Electorate: A Theory of Heterogenous Attribution.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 899–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, B. and Wilson, J.M.. 2003. “Causal Attribution and Economic Voting in American Congressional Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (3): 271–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, B. and Wilson, J.M.. 2006. “Cognitive Heterogeneity and Economic Voting: A Comparative Analysis of Four Democratic Electorates.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (1): 127–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, S.E. 1999. “‘Life is Not Fair’: Governors' Job Performance Ratings and State Economies.” Political Research Quarterly 52: 167–88.Google Scholar
Happy, J. 1986. “Voter Sensitivity to Economic Conditions: A Canadian-American Comparison.” Comparative Politics 10: 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Happy, J. 1989. “Economic Performance and Retrospective Voting in Canadian Federal Elections.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 22: 377–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Happy, J. 1992. “The Effects of Economic and Fiscal Performance on Incumbency Voting: The Canadian Case.” British Journal of Political Science 22: 117–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R., Blais, A., Gidengil, E. and Nevitte, N.. 1996. The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kone, S. and Winters, R.. 1993. “Taxes and voting: Electoral Retribution in the American States.” Journal of Politics 55: 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, R. and Redlawsk, D.. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 951–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, R. and Redlawsk, D.. 2006. How Voters Decide. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levernier, W. 1991. “The Effect of Relative Economic Performance on the Outcome of Gubernatorial Elections.” Public Choice 74: 181–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. 2006. “Does Economics Still Matter? Econometrics and the Vote.” The Journal of Politics 68 (1): 208–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. and Paldam, M.. 2000. “Economic Voting: An Introduction.” Electoral Studies 19: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. and Stegmaier, M.. 2000. “Economic Determinants of Electoral Outcomes.” Annual Review of Political Science 3: 183–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leyden, K. and Borrelli, S.. 1995. “The Effect of State Economic Conditions on Gubernatorial Elections: Does Unified Government Make a Difference?” Political Research Quarterly 48: 275–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, M. and Hamill, R.. 1986. “A Partisan Schema for Political Information Processing.” American Political Science Review 80: 505–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A. and McCubbins, M.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luskin, R. 1987. “Measuring Political Sophistication.” American Journal of Political Science 31: 856–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, J. and Sigelman, L.. 1999. “Public Assessments of Gubernatorial Performance.” American Politics Quarterly 27: 201–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKuen, M., Erikson, R. and Stimson, J.. 1992. “Peasants or Bankers? The American Electorate and the US Economy.” American Political Science Review 86: 597–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadeau, R. and Blais, A.. 1993. “Explaining Election Outcomes in Canada: Economy and Politics.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 26: 775–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadeau, R. and Blais, A.. 1995. “Economic Conditions, Leader Evaluations and Election Outcomes in Canada.” Canadian Public Policy 21 (2): 212–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadeau, R., Blais, A., Nevitte, N. and Gidengil, E.. 2000. “It's Unemployment, Stupid! Why Perceptions about the Job Situation Hurt the Liberals in the 1997 Election.” Canadian Public Policy 26: 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadeau, R. and Lewis-Beck, M.. 2001. “National Economic Voting in US Presidential Elections.” Journal of Politics 63: 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orth, D. 2001. “Accountability in a Federal System.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1 (4): 412–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peltzman, S. 1987. “Economic Conditions and Gubernatorial Elections.” The American Economic Review 77 (2): 293–97.Google Scholar
Popkin, S. 1991. The Reasoning Voter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G.B. and Whitten, G.. 1993. “A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of Political Context.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remmer, K. and Gelineau, F.. 2003. “Subnational Electoral Choice: Economic and Referendum Voting in Argentina, 1983–1999.” Comparative Political Studies 36 (7): 801–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, W.H. 1993. “Regression Standard Errors in Clustered Samples.” Stata Technical Bulletin 13: 19–23.Google Scholar
Rudolph, T. 2003a. “Institutional Context and the Assignment of Political Responsibility.” The Journal of Politics 65 (1): 190–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, T. 2003b. “Who's Responsible for the Economy? The Formation and Consequences of Responsibility Attributions.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (4): 698–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, T. and Grant, J.. 2002. “An Attributional Model of Economic Voting: Evidence from the 2000 Presidential Election.” Political Research Quarterly 55 (December): 805–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, D., Clarke, H., Stewart, M. and Whiteley, P.. 2001. “The Economy and Voting.” Parliamentary Affairs 54: 789–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savoie, D. 1992. Regional Economic Development: Canada's Search for Solutions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayrs, L. 1989. Pooled Time Series Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, P., Brody, R. and Tetlock, P.. 1991. Reasoning and Choice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, P. and Fastnow, C.. 1994. “Comparing Gubernatorial and Senatorial Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 47: 705–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svoboda, C. 1995. “Retrospective Voting in Gubernatorial Elections: 1982 and 1986.” Political Research Quarterly 48: 135–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tellier, G. 2006. “Effect of Economic Conditions on Government Popularity: The Canadian Provincial Case.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 39 (1): 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitten, G. and Palmer, H.. 1999. “Cross-National Analyses of Economic Voting.” Electoral Studies 18: 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar