Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:56:23.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inflation, Unemployment and Canadian Federal Voting Behaviour*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Keith Archer  and
Marquis Johnson
Keith Archer
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Marquis Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Identifying the effect of macro-economic performance on levels of partisan support in Canada has attracted considerable attention. Findings in Canada, as elsewhere, often diverge depending upon whether aggregate or individual-level data are used. This study employs individual-level data from 1974 to 1984 to examine the effect of changes in unemployment and inflation on support for the various parties. Controlling for partisan and leader effects, we find that the electoral effect of inflation and unemployment is highly variable over time, and is in an unstable partisan direction. Indeed, at times the partisan effect was perverse.

Résumé

Des efforts considérables ont été deployées pour identifier les effets de la performance macro-économique sur les soutiens accordés aux partis politiques canadiens. Au Canada, comme ailleurs, les conclusions different suivant l'emploi de données collectives ou individuelles. La présente étude a recourt à des données individuelles recueillies entre 1974 et 1984, et examine l'effet qu'ont eu sur les soutiens accordés aux divers partis les changements dans le chômage et l'inflation. Après avoir tenu compte de l'influence des partis et des chefs de partis, nous trouvons que l'effet de l'inflation et du chômage sur l'électorat est hautement variable dans le temps, ce qui rend toujours aléatoire l'appui pour un parti ou un autre. À tel point que l'effet partisan est parfois inversé.

Type
Note
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 569 - 584
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1988

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

1 The principal investigators for the 1974, 1979 and 1980 national election and panel studies were Harold Clarke, Jane Jenson, Lawrence LeDuc and Jon Pammett; the 1984 data were collected by Ronald Lambert, Steven Brown, James Curtis, Barry Kay and John Wilson. The data were made available by the ICPSR, and neither the Consortium nor the principal investigators is responsible for analyses or interpretations presented herein.

2 For a discussion of the distinction between egocentric and sociotropic judgments, see Kiewiet, RoderickMacroeconomics and Micropolitics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 5–26.Google Scholar

3 Regenstrief, PeterThe Diefenbaker Interlude (Toronto: Longman's, 1965), 50;Google ScholarMeisel, JohnWorking Papers on Canadian Politics (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1972), 14–22, and Tables 4–6 in Appendix.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Clarke, HaroldJenson, JaneLeDuc, Lawrence and Pammett, JonPolitical Choice in Canada (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1979), 246, especially Figure 8.1.Google Scholar

5 Clarke, HaroldJenson, JaneLeDuc, Lawrence and Pammett, Jon“Voting Behaviour and the Outcome of the 1979 Federal Election: The Impact of Leaders and Issues,” this JOURNAL 15 (1982), 548, especially Table 11.Google Scholar

6 Clarke, HaroldJenson, JaneLeDuc, Lawrence and Pammett, JonAbsent Mandate:The Politics of Discontent in Canada (Toronto: Gage, 1984), 90.Google Scholar

7 Happy, J. R.“Voter Sensitivity to Economic Conditions: A Canadian-American Comparison,” Comparative Politics 19 (1986), 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar However, Happy notes that this latter finding is a “serious anomaly” and suggests that the model requires fuller specification to include a measure of partisanship among others (see his note 23).

8 Monroe, Kristen and Erickson, Lynda“The Economy and Political Support: The Case of Canada,” Journal of Politics 48 (1986), 629–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Further analysis by Erickson, however, suggests that the effect of economic performance on NDP support may be less than initially estimated. See Erickson, Lynda“CCF-NDP Popularity and the Economy,” this JOURNAL 21 (1988), 99–116.Google Scholar

9 Johnston, RichardPublic Opinion and Public Policy in Canada, Research Studies for the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada, Vol. 35 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press for Supply and Services Canada, 1986), 138.Google Scholar

10 Harold Clarke and Allan Kornberg, “Public Reactions to Performance and Political Support in Contemporary Democracies: The Case of Canada” (Working paper no. 3:Duke University Program in International Political Economy, October, 1986), especially 17–18 and Figure 2.

11 The 1974 National Election Study included the following question: “How much were you personally affected by inflation over the past year or so, a great deal, some or not much at all?” However, this question was asked only of those who did not specifically mention inflation as personally important in the election. Since we are concerned with examining whether reported personal experience with inflation leads to more mentions of inflation, this variable is inappropriate for our purposes.

12 Our findings that egocentric economic conditions exert little or no effect on voting patterns is consistent with evidence from other advanced industrial democracies. See, for example, Lewis-Beck, Michael, “Comparative Economic Voting: Britain, France, Germany and Italy,” American Journal of Political Science 30 (1986), 315–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Detailed data are available from the authors on request.

14 Markus, Gregory“The Impact of Personal and National Economic Conditions on the Presidential Vote: A Pooled Cross-Sectional Analysis,” American Journal of Political Science 32 (1988), 137–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Monroe and Erickson, “The Economy and Political Support,” 622–23.

16 Data are not presented in tabular form.

17 Archer, Keith “A Simultaneous Equation Model of Canadian Voting Behaviour,” this JOURNAL 20 (1987), 553–72.Google Scholar

18 LeDuc, LawrenceClarke, HaroldJenson, Jane and Pammett, Jon“Partisan Instability in Canada: Evidence from a New Panel Study,” American Political Science Review 78 (1984), 470–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Clarke et al., Political Choice, 352–55.

20 Markus, Gregory and Converse, Philip“A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice,” American Political Science Review 73 (1979), 1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Lacking panel data, this approach introduces some measurement error through recall data. For an estimate of the error introduced see MacDermid, Robert, “The Recall of Past Party Identification: Feeble Memories or Faulty Concepts?” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, McMaster University, Hamilton, 1987.Google Scholar

22 See, for example, Campbell, AngusConverse, PhilipMiller, Warren and Stokes, DonaldThe American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960) and also Clarke et al. Political Choice in Canada, chap. 5.Google Scholar

23 See Clarke et al., “Voting Behaviour and the Outcome of the 1979 Election.”

24 We recognize, of course, that one could apply a much less stringent operational definition, the effect of which would be to increase the measured effect of leadership and to reduce further the observed effect of economic performance. However, as we shall argue, even using the stricter definition, the importance of inflation has deteriorated markedly.

25 See, for example, Clarke et al., Political Choice in Canada, 243–72.

26 Note that the discriminating criterion in Panel 5-B is whether the respondent always felt close to the party voted for in 1984. The 1984 National Election Study does not contain a question asking whether the respondent always voted for that party, as does the 1979 study. The question selected was the closest available approximation.