Negative Advertising and Political Competition
AbstractWhy is negative advertising such a prominent feature of competition in the political market? We propose an explanation that is based on the \fewness" of competitors in a political race. The typical election in the United States is a two-candidate race. In such duopoly contests, there is a simple economic rationale for "going negative" relative to non- duopoly contests: when the number of competitors is greater than two, engaging in negative ads creates positive externalities for opponents that are not the object of the attack. In contrast, positive ads benefit only the advertiser. To empirically investigate the hypothesis that the number of competitors can explain the volume of negative advertising in an election, we focus on US non-presidential primary contests in 2004, where the nature of primaries provides us with a cross section of independent races and large variation in the number of entrants. Our estimation employs novel data from the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which contains information on all political advertisements aired in the top 100 media markets in 2004 races. We find that duopolies are twice as likely to air a negative ad when compared to non-duopolies, and that doubling the number of competitors drives the rate of negative advertising in an election close to zero. These results are robust to the inclusion of a variety of controls and instruments for entrants in the race.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Barcelona Graduate School of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 623.
Date of creation: Sep 2010
Date of revision:
Political Advertising; Primaries; Duopoly;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- H0 - Public Economics - - General
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Andrea Prat & Riccardo Puglisi & James Snyder, 2005.
"Is Private Campaign Finance a Good Thing? Estimates of the Potential Informational Benefits,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
122247000000000960, David K. Levine.
- Riccardo Puglisi & Andrea Prat & James Snyder, 2006. "Is private campaign finance a good thing? estimates of the potential informational benefits," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/10393, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Polborn, Mattias K. & David T., Yi, 2006. "Informative Positive and Negative Campaigning," International Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 1(4), pages 351-371, October.
- Andrea Galeotti & Andrea Mattozzi, 2011. ""Personal Influence": Social Context and Political Competition," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 307-27, February.
- Arrow, Kenneth J. & Forsythe, Robert & Gorham, Michael & Hahn, Robert W. & Hanson, Robin & Ledyard, John O. & Levmore, Saul & Litan, Robert E. & Milgrom, Paul & Nelson, Forrest D. & Neumann, George R., 2008. "The Promise of Prediction Markets," Working paper 460, Regulation2point0.
- Caterina Gennaioli, 2010. "Go Divisive or Not? How Political Campaigns Affect Turnout," CESifo Working Paper Series 3298, CESifo Group Munich.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bruno Guallar).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.