[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v103y2022i5p1125-1139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Electoral incentives make politicians respond to voter preferences: Evidence from a survey experiment with members of Parliament in Belgium

Author

Listed:
  • Karolin Soontjens
  • Julie Sevenans
Abstract
Background Research shows that there is variation in how responsive individual politicians are to voter preferences. One explanation, it is commonly argued, lies in politicians' varying electoral motivations. Methods We test this assumption in a survey‐embedded experiment in which Belgian Members of parliament were asked what position they would take on a policy proposal after a random half of them had been shown real survey data indicating that their party voters were in favor of this policy. Results We find that politicians who feel unsure about their re‐election adapt their behavior more to be in line with the preferences of voters than confident politicians. Moreover, the anticipation of electoral accountability fosters responsiveness; the more politicians anticipate to be held accountable on Election Day for what they do and say, the more they respond to voter preferences. Conclusion These ideas are not new, yet we are the first to isolate them empirically and demonstrate their individual‐level foundations.

Suggested Citation

  • Karolin Soontjens & Julie Sevenans, 2022. "Electoral incentives make politicians respond to voter preferences: Evidence from a survey experiment with members of Parliament in Belgium," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1125-1139, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:5:p:1125-1139
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13186
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13186
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13186?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bartels, Larry M., 1991. "Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(2), pages 457-474, June.
    2. Butler, Daniel M. & Nickerson, David W., 2011. "Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 6(1), pages 55-83, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robert Dur & Arjan Non & Paul Prottung & Benedetta Ricci, 2023. "Who’s Afraid of Policy Experiments?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 23-027/V, Tinbergen Institute.

    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. Scott Crichlow, 2002. "Legislators' Personality Traits and Congressional Support for Free Trade," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(5), pages 693-711, October.
    2. Sandro Ambuehl & Sebastian Blesse & Philipp Doerrenberg & Christoph Feldhaus & Axel Ockenfels, 2023. "Politicians’ Social Welfare Criteria – An Experiment with German Legislators," ifo Working Paper Series 391, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    3. Sean Gailmard & Jeffery A. Jenkins, 2009. "Agency Problems, the 17th Amendment, and Representation in the Senate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 324-342, April.
    4. Nikolas Schöll & Aina Gallego & Gaël Le Mens, 2021. "Politician-Citizen Interactions and Dynamic Representation: Evidence from Twitter," Working Papers 1238, Barcelona School of Economics.
    5. Baum, Matt, 2000. "A Paradox of Public Opinion: Why a Less Interested Public is More Attentive to War," Institute for Social Science Research, Working Paper Series qt7200v97q, Institute for Social Science Research, UCLA.
    6. Robert Dur & Arjan Non & Paul Prottung & Benedetta Ricci, 2023. "Who’s Afraid of Policy Experiments?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 23-027/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Andranik Tangian, 2017. "Policy Representation of a Parliament: The Case of the German Bundestag 2013 Elections," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 151-179, January.
    8. Roy Kwon, 2015. "Does Radical Partisan Politics Affect National Income Distributions? Congressional Polarization and Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–2008," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(1), pages 49-64, March.
    9. Andrew B. Whitford, 2007. "Competing Explanations for Bureaucratic Preferences," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 219-247, July.
    10. Jacob M. Grumbach & Jamila Michener, 2022. "American Federalism, Political Inequality, and Democratic Erosion," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 699(1), pages 143-155, January.
    11. Jarron Bowman, 2020. "Do the Affluent Override Average Americans? Measuring Policy Disagreement and Unequal Influence," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(3), pages 1018-1037, May.
    12. Kriesi, Hanspeter, 2001. "Die Rolle der Öffentlichkeit im politischen Entscheidungsprozess: Ein konzeptueller Rahmen für ein international vergleichendes Forschungsprojekt," Discussion Papers, Working Group Political Communication and Mobilization P 01-701, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    13. Claire L Adida & Adeline Lo & Melina R Platas, 2019. "Americans preferred Syrian refugees who are female, English-speaking, and Christian on the eve of Donald Trump’s election," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, October.
    14. McMurray, Joseph, 2017. "Voting as communicating: Mandates, multiple candidates, and the signaling voter's curse," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 199-223.
    15. Tangian, Andranik S., 2017. "Policy representation by German parties at the 2017 federal election," Working Paper Series in Economics 107, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    16. Matsusaka, John G., 2017. "When Do Legislators Follow Constituent Opinion? Evidence from Matched Roll Call and Referendum Votes," Working Papers 264, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    17. Sencer Ecer & Nicholas J. Veasey, 2015. "The Shifting Determinants of Defense Spending Preferences Between 1980 and 2008," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 75-88, February.
    18. Cahan, Steven F., 1996. "Political use of income: Some experimental evidence from Capitol Hill," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 69-87.
    19. Richard C. Eichenberg & Richard Stoll, 2003. "Representing Defense," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(4), pages 399-422, August.
    20. Guri Rosén, 2019. "Proving Their Worth? The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Members of the European Parliament," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 266-278.

    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:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:5:p:1125-1139. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.