IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Spending, contacting, and voting: the 2010 British general election in the constituencies

Listed author(s):
  • Ron Johnston
  • Charles Pattie
  • David Cutts
  • Justin Fisher

Abstract. A substantial body of recent research has uncovered the impact of constituency campaigns on British general election outcomes, using the published returns of candidates’ spending as a proxy measure for their campaigns’ intensity—the more spent, the greater the intensity of the local campaign, and the greater the intensity of campaigning, the better their performance in the constituency, and the poorer their opponents’ performance. These data refer only to the last few weeks before the election, however, and cannot identify how spending affects behaviour. For the latter, it is argued that spending is a proxy measure for the amount of contact between candidates and voters; the greater the amount spent the greater the probability that an elector contacted will vote for the relevant party. It has been difficult to evaluate this argument until the 2010 general election, however, for which the availability of a large panel survey that includes information on those contacts allows a full assessment of the hypothesis. The results show that the more spent in a constituency the greater the volume and range of contacts there, which in turn increases the probability of individuals voting for the party concerned. Keywords: canvassing, contacting, campaign spending, elections, Britain

If 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.

File URL:
File Function: abstract
Download Restriction: Fulltext access restricted to subscribers, see for details

File URL:
File Function: main text
Download Restriction: Fulltext access restricted to subscribers, see for details

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Pion Ltd, London in its journal Environment and Planning A.

Volume (Year): 44 (2012)
Issue (Month): 5 (May)
Pages: 1165-1184

in new window

Handle: RePEc:pio:envira:v:44:y:2012:i:5:p:1165-1184
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pio:envira:v:44:y:2012:i:5:p:1165-1184. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Neil Hammond)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.