IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/col/000547/017636.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why oppose a peace agreement? The relationship between belief systems, informational shortcuts, and attitudes towards the 2016 referendum in Colombia

Author

Listed:
  • Manuela Munoz Fuerte

Abstract

On 2 October 2016, the proposed peace agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, or FARC) was narrowly defeated in a plebiscite that sought public approval for the deal. The “no” option received 50.2 percent of votes cast, and less than 38 percent of the electorate cast a vote. Why did the majority of voters oppose the peace agreement? In a combined survey ‒a face-to-face sample in Bogotá and an online sample‒ conducted prior to the referendum, we identify voter cleavages using the principal component analysis (PCA) method. We find three consistent dimensions with profiles reflecting whether an individual is a 1) pro-status quo citizen; 2) a conservative-right voter; and 3) a citizen with a pronounced religious identity. In addition, we not only assess voters’ choices in the plebiscite based on these profiles, but also examine how these profiles may predict voters’ opinions on specific aspects of, and beliefs about, the agreement. Similar results are found when we replicate the PCA exercise using data from the 2016 Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) survey. Our findings suggest that voters are heterogeneous, but that different beliefs and attitudes about the referendum clustered in specific type of voters, which in turn shaped these voters’ willingness to endorse the proposed agreement. ***** El 2 de octubre de 2016, el acuerdo de paz propuesto entre el Gobierno colombiano y las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) fue derrotado en un plebiscito que buscaba la aprobación pública del acuerdo. La opción del “no” recibió 50,2 % de los votos a favor, menos de 38 % del electorado participó en la elección. ¿Por qué la mayoría de los votantes se opuso al acuerdo de paz? En una encuesta conjunta ‒una muestra cara a cara en Bogotá y una muestra en internet‒ realizada antes del plebiscito se identificaron diferentes perfiles de votantes utilizando el método de análisis de componentes principales (PCA). Se encontraron tres dimensiones coherentes con los perfiles que reflejan si un individuo es un 1) ciudadano pro-status quo; 2) un votante de derecha conservador; o 3) un ciudadano con una identidad religiosa pronunciada. Además, no solo se evaluaron las decisiones de los votantes en el plebiscito en función de estos perfiles, sino que también se examinó cómo estos pueden predecir las opiniones de los votantes sobre aspectos específicos y creencias acerca del acuerdo. Se encontraron resultados similares cuando se replicó el ejercicio de PCA utilizando datos de la encuesta del Proyecto de Opinión Pública Latinoamericana (LAPOP) de 2016. Los resultados sugieren que los votantes son heterogéneos, pero que diferentes creencias y actitudes sobre el referéndum se agrupan en tipos específicos de votantes, que a su vez influyen sobre la voluntad de éstos para respaldar el acuerdo de paz.

Suggested Citation

  • Manuela Munoz Fuerte, 2018. "Why oppose a peace agreement? The relationship between belief systems, informational shortcuts, and attitudes towards the 2016 referendum in Colombia," Documentos de trabajo 17636, Escuela de Gobierno - Universidad de los Andes.
  • Handle: RePEc:col:000547:017636
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.dotec-colombia.org/administrator/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&layout=edit
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:col:000547:017636. 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: Alejandra Rojas Forero (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/egandco.html .

    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.