[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/statpp/v11y2020i1p87-110n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Digital-Era Political Marketing is Not the Death Knell for Democracy: On the Importance of Placing Political Microtargeting in the Context of Party Competition

Author

Listed:
  • König Pascal D.

    (Department of Social Sciences, TU Kaiserslautern, Erwin-Schrödinger-Straße, Building 57, 67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany)

Abstract
Political microtargeting has been depicted as a severe danger for democratic representation. It is said to fragment the electorate, help manipulate voters, and make politics overall less responsive and inclusive. However, the present paper aims to show why these are not general consequences to be expected from political microtargeting. It argues that a greater consideration needs to be given to context for a more differentiated understanding of microtargeting. The paper adds to existing research by situating political microtargeting within research on party politics. First, it shows that based on core assumptions about party competition and the strategic incentives it involves, one would not expect that microtargeting practices undermine democratic representation. Major constraints resulting from party competition hardly allow parties to be less responsive and inclusive when employing microtargeting. Second, the presence of such constraints furthermore depends on the larger political and institutional context that shapes the intensity of competition.

Suggested Citation

  • König Pascal D., 2020. "Why Digital-Era Political Marketing is Not the Death Knell for Democracy: On the Importance of Placing Political Microtargeting in the Context of Party Competition," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 87-110, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:statpp:v:11:y:2020:i:1:p:87-110:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/spp-2019-0006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2019-0006
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/spp-2019-0006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Noam Lupu, 2013. "Party Brands and Partisanship: Theory with Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Argentina," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 49-64, January.
    2. Ivo Bischoff, 2005. "Party competition in a heterogeneous electorate: The role of dominant-issue voters," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 122(1), pages 221-243, January.
    3. Kevin Arceneaux, 2012. "Cognitive Biases and the Strength of Political Arguments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(2), pages 271-285, April.
    4. Bodó, Balázs & Helberger, Natali & de Vreese, Claes H., 2017. "Political micro-targeting: a Manchurian candidate or just a dark horse?," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13.
    5. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    6. Kruschinski, Simon & Haller, André, 2017. "Restrictions on data-driven political micro-targeting in Germany," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 6(4), pages 1-23.
    7. Kitschelt, Herbert P., 1986. "Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 57-85, January.
    8. Sonia Livingstone, 2013. "The participation paradigm in audience research," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 49630, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Zuiderveen Borgesius, Frederik J. & Trilling, Damian & Möller, Judith & Bodó, Balázs & de Vreese, Claes H. & Helberger, Natali, 2016. "Should we worry about filter bubbles?," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 5(1), pages 1-16.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Horacio A Larreguy & John Marshall & James M SnyderJr, 2018. "Leveling the playing field: How campaign advertising can help non-dominant parties," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(6), pages 1812-1849.
    2. Alexander Stoecker, 2021. "Partisanship in a Young Democracy: Evidence from Ghana," Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 193-21, Universität Siegen, Fakultät Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Wirtschaftsinformatik und Wirtschaftsrecht.
    3. Bornstein, Nicholas & Lanz, Bruno, 2008. "Voting on the environment: Price or ideology? Evidence from Swiss referendums," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 430-440, October.
    4. Christophe Crombez, 2004. "Introduction," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 227-231, July.
    5. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    6. Jung-In Jo & Hyun Jin Choi, 2019. "Enigmas of grievances about inequality: Effects of attitudes toward inequality and government redistribution on protest participation," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 22(4), pages 348-368, December.
    7. Kaivan Munshi & Mark Rosenzweig, 2008. "The Efficacy of Parochial Politics: Caste, Commitment, and Competence in Indian Local Governments," NBER Working Papers 14335, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Navin Kartik & Francesco Squintani & Katrin Tinn, 2024. "Information Revelation and Pandering in Elections," Papers 2406.17084, arXiv.org.
    9. Theodora A. Maniou & Andreas Veglis, 2020. "Employing a Chatbot for News Dissemination during Crisis: Design, Implementation and Evaluation," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, June.
    10. Burkhard Schipper & Hee Yeul Woo, 2012. "Political Awareness and Microtargeting of Voters in Electoral Competition," Working Papers 124, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    11. Marco Faravelli & Randall Walsh, 2011. "Smooth Politicians And Paternalistic Voters: A Theory Of Large Elections," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000250, David K. Levine.
    12. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Neil J. Mitchell & Kerry G. Herron, 2004. "Foreign and Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the U.S. and British Publics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(3), pages 287-309, June.
    13. Eric Kaufmann & Henry Patterson, 2006. "Intra‐Party Support for the Good Friday Agreement in the Ulster Unionist Party," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(3), pages 509-532, October.
    14. Micael Castanheira, 2003. "Why Vote For Losers?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(5), pages 1207-1238, September.
    15. Peter J. Coughlin, 2015. "Probabilistic voting in models of electoral competition," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 13, pages 218-234, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Mihir Bhattacharya, 2019. "Constitutionally consistent voting rules over single-peaked domains," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 225-246, February.
    17. Marc Henry & Ismael Mourifié, 2013. "Euclidean Revealed Preferences: Testing The Spatial Voting Model," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 650-666, June.
    18. , & ,, 2006. "Group formation and voter participation," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 1(4), pages 461-487, December.
    19. Dendi Ramdani & Arjen Witteloostuijn, 2012. "The Shareholder–Manager Relationship and Its Impact on the Likelihood of Firm Bribery," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 495-507, July.
    20. Alan E. Wiseman, 2006. "A Theory of Partisan Support and Entry Deterrence in Electoral Competition," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 123-158, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:statpp:v:11:y:2020:i:1:p:87-110:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.