No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2009
The relationships between attitudes toward income redistribution and partisan preferences are examined and contrasted in Canadian and American samples of college students. In both samples evidence is found that there is a strong relationship between the variables among males and an absence of a relationship among females. In Canada, support for income redistribution is strongly positively correlated with support for the New Democratic party, positively correlated with support for the Liberal party, and strongly negatively correlated with support for the Progressive Conservative party. In the United States support for income redistribution is strongly positively correlated with support for the Democratic party and strongly negatively correlated with support for the Republican party. Cross-national differences are also found between Canadian and American subjects, Canadian subjects having significantly lower variance among party supporters regarding this issue. Some implications of the results for research in the area of sex differences in politics and the influence of economic concerns on political behaviour are discussed briefly.
Au Canada, favoriser la redistribution des revenus va très étroitement de pair avec un appui au Nouveau Parti démocratique et, dans un moindre mesure.au Parti libéral, mais ne correspond absolument pas à un appui au Parti progressiste-conservateur. Aux États-Unis, il y a aussi de très fortes corrélations entre l'attitude face à la redistribution des revenus et le parti qu'on appuie, une attitude favorable à cette redistribution se retrouvant chez les démocrates mais non chez les républicans. Parmi les différences remarquables entre les profils canadiens et américains sur la question, on note une attitude nettement plus homogène chez les partisans canadiens. L'article se termine par une discussion des rapports d'une part entre le sexe et la politique et d'autre part entre les enjeux économiques et les comportements politiques.
1 Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1957).Google Scholar
2 Kramer, Gerald H., “Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behaviour. 1896–1896.” American Political Science Review 65 (1971). 131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 These results are those reported in Gerald H. Kramer. “Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior. 1896–1896” (Bobbs-Merrill Reprint [PS-498]).
4 Stigler, George J., “General Economic Conditions and National Elections,” American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), 63 (1973), 160–67.Google Scholar
5 Tufte, Edward R., “Determinants of the Outcomes of Midterm Congressional Elections,” American Political Science Review 69 (1975), 812–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Arcelus, Francisco and Meltzer, Allan H., “The Effect of Aggregate Economic Variables on Congressional Elections,” American Political Science Review 69 (1975), 1232–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Bloom, Howard S. and Price, H. Douglas, “Voter Response to Short-Run Economic Conditions,” American Political Science Review 69 (1975), 1240–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Tufte, Edward R., Political Control of the Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978).Google Scholar
9 A comprehensive critique of the Michigan School approach is given in Popkin, Samuel, et al., “Comment: What Have You Done For Me Lately? Toward An Investment Theory of Voting,” American Political Science Review 70 (1976), 779–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Wides, Jeffrey, “Self-Perceived Economic Change and Political Orientation: A Preliminary Exploration,” American Politics Quarterly 4 (1976). 395–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Klorman, Ricardo, “Trend in Personal Finances and the Vote,” Public Opinion Quarterly 42 (1978), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Kinder, Donald R. and Kiewiet, D. Roderick, “Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgments in Congressional Elections,” American Journal of Political Science 23 (1979), 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Fiorina, Morris P., “Economic Retrospective Voting in American National Elections: A Micro-Analysis,” American Journal of Political Science 22 (1978), 426–43; Kinder and Kiewiet, “Economic Discontent and Political Behavior.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Alford, John R. and Hibbing, John R., “The Electoral Impact of Economic Conditions: Who is Held Responsible?” American Journal of Political Science 25 (1981), 423–39.Google Scholar
14 Kiewiet, D. Roderick, “Policy Oriented Voting in Response to Economic Issues,” American Political Science Review 75 (1981), 448–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Shaffer, William R., Computer Simulations of Voting Behaviour (London: Oxford University Press, 1972)Google Scholar: Frohlich, Norman, et al., “A Test of Downsian Voter Rationality: 1964 Presidential Voting,” American Political Science Review 72 (1978), 178–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Zipp, John F., “Left-Right Dimensions of Canadian Federal Party Identification: A Discriminant Analysis,” this JOURNAL 11 (1978), 251–77.Google Scholar
17 Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr., “Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy,” American Political Science Review 71 (1977), 1467–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 The research leading to these results is amply documented by Hibbs (“Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy”).
19 Frohlich, Norman and Oppenheimer, Joe A., “Beyond Economic Man: Altruism, Egalitarianism and Difference Maximizing,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 28 (1984), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 See Campbell, Angus, Gurin, Gerald and Miller, Warren E., The Voter Decides (Evanston: Row, Peterson and Company, [1954], reprinted by Westport: Greenwood, 1971)Google Scholar; Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960Google Scholar).
21 See John W. Soule and Wilma E. McGrath, “A Comparative Study of Male-Female Political Attitudes at Citizen and Elite Levels,” a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, August-September 1974); Jennings, M. Kent and Farah, Barbara G., “Social Roles and Political Resources: An Over-Time Study of Men and Women in Party Elites.” American Journal of Political Science 25 (1981), 462–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Niemi, Richard G., Hedges, Roman and Jennings, M. Kent, “The Similarity of Husbands ‘and Wives’ Political Views,” American Politics Quarterly 5 (1977), 133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Although no explicit demographic data (except for sex) were collected, the subjects were students in state-funded universities, and could be assumed to be predominantly middle and upper-middle class, native-born, and largely between the ages of 18 and 22.
23 Epstein, Seymour, “The Stability of Behavior: On Predicting Most of the People Much of the Time,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (1979), 1097–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 The weight assigned to each response reflected the authors' judgments regarding the relative intensity of each answer's contribution to a measure of partisan preference. Although we would not expect a quarrel regarding the ordinal ranking of the three questions as to their contribution to partisan preferences.some might argue regarding the interval assignments to the different questions. In that sense the numbers assigned are somewhat arbitrary.
25 Details of the correlations for all questions as well as a more detailed analysis of the reliability, including correlations of responses over pairs of days, pairs of two-day averages, and pairs of three-day averages may be obtained from the authors.
26 Tables which show these results for the individual questions can be obtained from the authors.
27 Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes, The American Voter: Jennings, M. Kent and Niemi, Richard G., “Division of Political Labor Between Mothers and Fathers.” American Political Science Review 25 (1971), 69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Beck, Paul Allen and Jennings, M. Kent, “Parents as ‘Middlepersons’ in Political Socialization,” Journal of Politics 37 (1975), 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar