IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intare/v18y2015i4p329-344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A re-examination of the effects of the economy, government spending, and incumbent ideology on national policy mood

Author

Listed:
  • HeeMin Kim

    (Seoul National University, Korea; Florida State University, USA)

  • Hyeyoung Yoo

    (Seoul National University, Korea)

  • Jungho Roh

    (Yonsei University, Korea)

Abstract

Previous explanations of the causes of shifts in policy mood have been primarily economic. When the economy expands aggregate policy preferences move left, but when the economy contracts aggregate policy preferences move right. In this paper, we seek to improve our understanding of the causes of national policy mood shift in two ways. First, we focus on government spending and its impact on policy mood. Previously scholars used it as a control variable in their models and pretty much assumed that intrusive spending will move policy mood to the right, while lack of it will move policy mood to the left. We investigate if different types of the spending have different effects on the policy mood of a nation. Second, we seek a better understanding of the impact of national economic conditions on policy mood by looking at more countries, using various data and more sophisticated methodology. A panel data analysis of two different measures of the policy mood, one based on party manifestos (24 countries and 33 years) and the other based on voter surveys (17 countries and 29 years), reveals that: (i) there is ample evidence that economic conditions have a direct impact on the policy mood of citizens; (ii) the national policy mood is generally negatively related to the current government ideology; (iii) an expanding economy pushes policy mood to the left when the incumbent’s ideology is moderate to rightist; (iv) failure to control inflation causes aggregate policy preferences to shift to the right only under a moderate to left-leaning government; (v) failure to control unemployment causes national policy preferences to shift to the right only under a moderate to right-leaning government; (vi) increasing social spending pushes policy mood further to the left only under a moderate to left-leaning government; and (vii) increasing military spending pushes policy mood to the left only under a moderate to left-leaning government.

Suggested Citation

  • HeeMin Kim & Hyeyoung Yoo & Jungho Roh, 2015. "A re-examination of the effects of the economy, government spending, and incumbent ideology on national policy mood," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:18:y:2015:i:4:p:329-344
    DOI: 10.1177/2233865915605412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2233865915605412
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2233865915605412?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. Lupia,Arthur & McCubbins,Mathew D., 1998. "The Democratic Dilemma," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521584487.
    2. Lowry, Robert C. & Alt, James E. & Ferree, Karen E., 1998. "Fiscal Policy Outcomes and Electoral Accountability in American States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(4), pages 759-774, December.
    3. Domke, William K. & Eichenberg, Richard C. & Kelleher, Catherine M., 1983. "The Illusion of Choice: Defense and Welfare in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 1948-1978," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(1), pages 19-35, March.
    4. Przeworski, Adam & Soares, Glaucio A. D., 1971. "Theories in Search of a Curve: A Contextual Interpretation of Left Vote," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(1), pages 51-68, March.
    5. Brambor, Thomas & Clark, William Roberts & Golder, Matt, 2006. "Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 63-82, January.
    6. Mark Andreas Kayser, 2009. "Partisan Waves: International Business Cycles and Electoral Choice," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 950-970, October.
    7. Lupia,Arthur & McCubbins,Mathew D., 1998. "The Democratic Dilemma," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521585934.
    8. McDONALD, MICHAEL D. & MENDES, SILVIA M. & BUDGE, IAN, 2004. "What Are Elections For? Conferring the Median Mandate," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 1-26, January.
    9. Kenneth Benoit & Michael Laver & Slava Mikhaylov, 2009. "Treating Words as Data with Error: Uncertainty in Text Statements of Policy Positions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 495-513, April.
    10. Russett, Bruce, 1982. "Defense Expenditures and National Well-being," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 76(4), pages 767-777, December.
    11. Achen, Christopher H., 1975. "Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 1218-1231, December.
    12. Durr, Robert H., 1993. "What Moves Policy Sentiment?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 158-170, March.
    13. Mintz, Alex, 1989. "Guns Versus Butter: A Disaggregated Analysis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(4), pages 1285-1293, December.
    14. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Rodden, Jonathan & Snyder, James M., 2008. "The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(2), pages 215-232, May.
    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. Chwieroth, Jeffrey & Walter, Andrew, 2015. "Great expectations, veto players, and the changing politics of banking crises," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60953, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Eric S. Lin & Hamid E. Ali & Yu-Lung Lu, 2015. "Does Military Spending Crowd Out Social Welfare Expenditures? Evidence from a Panel of OECD Countries," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 33-48, February.
    3. Ying Zhang & Xiaoxing Liu & Jiaxin Xu & Rui Wang, 2017. "Does military spending promote social welfare? A comparative analysis of the BRICS and G7 countries," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 686-702, November.
    4. James E. Alt & David Dreyer Lassen & David Skilling, 2001. "Fiscal Transparency, Gubernatorial Popularity, and the Scale of Government: Evidence from the States," EPRU Working Paper Series 01-16, Economic Policy Research Unit (EPRU), University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    5. Christopher Gelpi, 2017. "Democracies in Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(9), pages 1925-1949, October.
    6. Brendan Nyhan, 2011. "The limited effects of testimony on political persuasion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 283-312, September.
    7. Anders Gustafsson, 2019. "Busy doing nothing: why politicians implement inefficient policies," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 282-299, September.
    8. Aaron McCright, 2011. "Political orientation moderates Americans’ beliefs and concern about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 104(2), pages 243-253, January.
    9. Thompson, Paul N., 2019. "Are school officials held accountable for fiscal stress? Evidence from school district financial intervention systems," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 44-54.
    10. Gary Goertz & Tony Hak & Jan Dul, 2013. "Ceilings and Floors," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(1), pages 3-40, February.
    11. David Altman, 2002. "Prospects for E-Government in Latin America: Satisfaction With Democracy, Social Accountability, and Direct Democracy," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 5-20, December.
    12. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    13. Cavaillé, Charlotte & Chen, Daniel L. & Van Der Straeten, Karine, 2022. "Who Cares? Measuring Preference Intensity in a Polarized Environment," IAST Working Papers 22-130, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    14. Donald Wittman, 2008. "Targeted political advertising and strategic behavior by uninformed voters," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 87-100, January.
    15. Michal Tóth & Roman Chytilek, 2018. "Fast, frugal and correct? An experimental study on the influence of time scarcity and quantity of information on the voter decision making process," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 67-86, October.
    16. John Patty & Roberto Weber, 2007. "Letting the good times roll: A theory of voter inference and experimental evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 293-310, March.
    17. James Tilley & Christopher Wlezien, 2008. "Does Political Information Matter? An Experimental Test Relating to Party Positions on Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(1), pages 192-214, March.
    18. Seemab Gillani & Muhammad Nouman Shafiq & Tusawar Iftikhar Ahmad, 2019. "Military Expenditures and Health Outcomes: A Global Perspective," iRASD Journal of Energy and Environment, International Research Association for Sustainable Development (iRASD), vol. 1(1), pages 1-20, June.
    19. Matthias Benz & Alois Stutzer, 2004. "Are Voters Better Informed When They Have a Larger Say in Politics? -- Evidence for the European Union and Switzerland," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 119(1_2), pages 31-59, April.
    20. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, "undated". "The Role of Direct Democracy and Federalism in Local Power," IEW - Working Papers 209, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.

    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:sae:intare:v:18:y:2015:i:4:p:329-344. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.hufs.ac.kr/user/hufsenglish/re_1.jsp .

    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.