IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v83y2002i2p416-435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sociotropes, Systematic Bias, and Political Failure: Reflections on the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy

Author

Listed:
  • Bryan Caplan

Abstract

Objectives. Economic models of politics typically make two assumptions about voters: first, their motives are egocentric, not sociotropic; second, their beliefs are rational, not subject to systematic bias. Political scientists have presented strong evidence against the first assumption (Mansbridge, 1990), but have become increasingly willing to accept the second (Page and Shapiro, 1992; Marcus and Hanson, 1993). This article tests these two assumptions, then explores the tests’ broader implications. Methods. I use the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy to test for egocentricity of motivation and rationality of belief. Results. Both standard assumptions fail for the case where the economic approach would seemingly be most relevant: economic beliefs. Conclusions. This is not necessarily cause for greater optimism about the efficiency of democracy: sociotropic voters with biased economic beliefs are more likely to produce severe political failures than are selfish voters with rational expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • Bryan Caplan, 2002. "Sociotropes, Systematic Bias, and Political Failure: Reflections on the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(2), pages 416-435, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:83:y:2002:i:2:p:416-435
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-6237.00092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00092
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-6237.00092?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Hans Pitlik & Gerhard Schwarz & Barbara Bechter & Bernd Brandl, 2011. "Near Is My Shirt but Nearer Is My Skin: Ideology or Self‐Interest as Determinants of Public Opinion on Fiscal Policy Issues," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 271-290, May.
    2. repec:pri:cepsud:99blinderkrueger is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Gregory Chow & Yan Shen, 2004. "Money, Price Level and Output in the Chinese Macro Economy," Working Papers 104, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
    4. Alan Blinder & Alan Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Working Papers 875, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    5. Author-Name: Alan S. Blinder & Alan B. Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 35(1), pages 327-397.
    6. Nikolay Wenzel, 2007. "Ideology, constitutional culture and institutional change: the EU constitution as reflection of Europe’s emergent postmodernism," Romanian Economic Business Review, Romanian-American University, vol. 2(3), pages 25-47, September.
    7. Author-Name: Alan S. Blinder & Alan B. Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 35(1), pages 327-397.
    8. Bryan Caplan & Stephen Miller, 2012. "Positive versus normative economics: what’s the connection? Evidence from the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy and the General Social Survey," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 241-261, January.
    9. Bryan Caplan, 2005. "Rejoinder to Wittman: True Myths," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 2(2), pages 165-185, August.

    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:83:y:2002:i:2:p:416-435. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.