How rational are voters when expecting government parties to fulfil pledges? A cross-national survey experiment

被引:2
作者
Heinisch, Reinhard [1 ,3 ]
Werner, Annika [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
[2] Australian Natl Univ, Canberra, Australia
[3] Univ Salzburg, Dept Polit Sci, Rudolfskai 42, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria
关键词
pledge fulfilment; rational voter; democracy; political parties; attitudes; CITIZENS EVALUATIONS; ELECTION PLEDGES; PREFERENCES; MPS;
D O I
10.1111/1475-6765.12574
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
That parties fulfil their pre-election pledges once they are in government is a fundamental idea of many democracy models. This paper addresses the question of whether the government/opposition status of their party affects how much citizens want governments to fulfil their promises. We hypothesize that interest-driven, rational voters are more likely to prefer their own party to keep its promises and investigate whether this rationale is impacted by public opinion and expert views. The analysis is based on a survey experiment conducted in Australia and Austria. It finds that voters broadly adhere to the democratic principle of expecting pledge fulfilment but, at the same time, some take a rational approach to government promises. The opinions of the public and experts mitigate but do not change this effect. Another key finding is the significant difference in the preference for promise keeping versus promise breaking between government and opposition voters in the Austrian case, the country with the more heterogeneous and polarized political system. This paper contributes to the literature on voters' attitudes on democracy and pledge fulfilment by showing that voters are normatively driven but a significant number of voters deviate and instead follow the rational voter logic.
引用
收藏
页码:852 / 872
页数:21
相关论文
共 40 条
[21]   COGNITIVE DISSONANCE [J].
FESTINGER, L .
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 1962, 207 (04) :93-&
[22]   Government status and legislative behaviour - Partisan veto players in Australia, Denmark, Finland and Germany [J].
Ganghof, Steffen ;
Brauninger, Tbonas .
PARTY POLITICS, 2006, 12 (04) :521-539
[23]   Political ignorance and collective policy preferences [J].
Gilens, M .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2001, 95 (02) :379-396
[24]   When voters and parties agree: Valence issues and party competition [J].
Green, Jane .
POLITICAL STUDIES, 2007, 55 (03) :629-655
[25]   THE EFFECT OF ELECTORAL REWARDS IN MULTIPARTY COMPETITION WITH ENTRY [J].
GREENBERG, J ;
SHEPSLE, K .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 1987, 81 (02) :525-537
[26]  
Mair P., 2014, On Parties, Party Systems and Democracy, P581
[27]   Rethinking representation [J].
Mansbridge, J .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2003, 97 (04) :515-528
[28]   Retrospective pledge voting: A comparative study of the electoral consequences of government parties' pledge fulfilment [J].
Matthiess, Theres .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 59 (04) :774-796
[29]   Asymmetric Accountability: An Experimental Investigation of Biases in Evaluations of Governments' Election Pledges [J].
Naurin, Elin ;
Soroka, Stuart ;
Markwat, Niels .
COMPARATIVE POLITICAL STUDIES, 2019, 52 (13-14) :2207-2234
[30]   Do Voters Vote in Line with their Policy Preferences?-The Role of Information [J].
Nordin, Mattias .
CESIFO ECONOMIC STUDIES, 2014, 60 (04) :681-721