IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/far/spaeco/y2021i2p127-164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Modeling of Voter Choice: The Survey of Theoretical and Empirical Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Lada Evgenyevna Kuletskaya

    (Post-graduate student of the Graduate school of Economics (Department of applied Economics), National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Abstract

As for today, political elections are the key form of people’s participation in the formation of the state in all democratic countries, which is why theoretical works in the field of spatial modeling of voter choice appeared relatively long ago and played a major role in the development of both further theoretical and empirical research in this area. In this survey we firstly give a brief overview of the history of the formation of spatial modeling in relation to election results and political preferences of individuals from the point of view of research methodology, based on the classical theoretical ‘proximity model’ and ‘directional model’, where rational individuals determine their political positions and compare them with the positions of candidates. Secondly, we explain the appearance of the studies of the mutual influence of voters living in neighboring territories on each other as one of the factors that determine the voters’ political positions and, accordingly, the final choice of a candidate. We also point out the authors’ different explanations of the reasons for the appearance of such mutual influence of voters and other factors affecting voters living in neighboring territories (also called as ‘contextual effects’) and emphasize the importance of taking them into account in the studies of electoral preferences. A separate chapter in this paper presents the systematization and description of the main empirical approaches to spatial modeling of electoral choice: at the beginning, we present the basic econometric spatial models (used by the authors regardless of the subject of the study), and then we describe the empirical work in the field of voter choice, depending on the hypotheses, focusing on the research methodology and the data used. In conclusion, we define the main directions for the research development and the vector of further practical work in this area. This paper will help researchers understand existing fundamental works, evaluate current approaches to the modeling of electoral choice, and improve theoretical or empirical spatial analysis

Suggested Citation

  • Lada Evgenyevna Kuletskaya, 2021. "Spatial Modeling of Voter Choice: The Survey of Theoretical and Empirical Approach," Spatial Economics=Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika, Economic Research Institute, Far Eastern Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences (Khabarovsk, Russia), issue 2, pages 127-164.
    • Handle: RePEc:far:spaeco:y:2021:i:2:p:127-164
    DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2021.2.127-164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.spatial-economics.com/images/spatial-econimics/2021_2/SE.2021.2.127-164.Kuletskaya.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://spatial-economics.com/eng/arkhiv-nomerov/2021/112-2021-2/1004-SE-2021-2-127-164
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2021.2.127-164?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. Davis, Otto A. & Hinich, Melvin J. & Ordeshook, Peter C., 1970. "An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 426-448, June.
    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. Daniela Giannetti & Itai Sened, 2004. "Party Competition and Coalition Formation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(4), pages 483-515, October.
    2. Gary Cox, 1984. "An expected-utility model of electoral competition," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 337-349, August.
    3. Kenneth Koford, 1982. "Centralized vote-trading," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 245-268, January.
    4. Larry Samuelson, 1984. "Electoral equilibria with restricted strategies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 307-327, January.
    5. John W. Patty, 2007. "Incommensurability and Issue Voting," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(2), pages 115-131, April.
    6. Stefano Camatarri & Francesco Zucchini, 2019. "Government coalitions and Eurosceptic voting in the 2014 European Parliament elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(3), pages 425-446, September.
    7. Tovey, Craig A., 2010. "The instability of instability of centered distributions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 53-73, January.
    8. Valkanova, Kremena, 2024. "Revealed preference domains from random choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 288-304.
    9. Kenneth Benoit & Michael Laver, 2005. "Mapping the Irish Policy Space - Voter and Party Spaces in Preferential Elections," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 36(2), pages 83-108.
    10. Makowsky, Michael D., 2011. "Religion, clubs, and emergent social divides," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 74-87.
    11. Julio Rotemberg, 2009. "Attitude-dependent altruism, turnout and voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 223-244, July.
    12. Scott E. Page, 1992. "Political Parties and Electoral Landscapes," Discussion Papers 997, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    13. Scott E. Page, 1991. "Simulations and Spatial Voting Methods," Discussion Papers 952, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    14. A. J. McGann, 2002. "The Advantages of Ideological Cohesion," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 14(1), pages 37-70, January.
    15. Hassan F. Gholipour & Reza Tajaddini & Farhad Taghizadeh-hesary, 2022. "Individuals’ Financial Satisfaction and National Priority: A Global Perspective," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 159-177, February.
    16. de Gorter, Harry & Rausser, Gordon C., 1989. "Endogenizing U.S. milk price supports," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt4f58t530, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    17. N/A, 1997. "Individual Perception and Models of Issue Voting," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 13-21, January.
    18. Adam Meirowitz, 2005. "Keeping the other candidate guessing: Electoral competition when preferences are private information," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 299-318, March.
    19. Antonio Merlo & Áureo de Paula, 2017. "Identification and Estimation of Preference Distributions When Voters Are Ideological," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(3), pages 1238-1263.
    20. Podkolzina, Elena & Kuletskaya, Lada & Demidova, Olga, 2022. "Spatial modelling of voting preferences: The “Mystery” of the Republic of Tatarstan," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 67, pages 74-96.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    contextual effects; neighborhood effects; spatial voting theory; spatial econometrics; political positions of voters; electoral choice;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C31 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions; Social Interaction Models
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    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:far:spaeco:y:2021:i:2:p:127-164. 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: Sergey Rogov (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecrinru.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.