IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v22y2010i3p275-300.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does ‘Civic Duty’ ‘Solve’ The Rational Choice Voter Turnout Puzzle?

Author

Listed:
  • Robert S. Goldfarb

    (Department of Economics, George Washington University, 2115 G st NW suite 340, Washington DC 20052, USA, gldfrb@gwu.edu)

  • Lee Sigelman

    (George Washington University)

Abstract

Rational choice models of voter turnout try to account for why people vote by including on the ‘benefits’ side of the cost-benefit calculus some term representing either the collective benefits of voting or the satisfaction the individual derives from the very act of voting, a strategy subject to a number of telling criticisms. After a background discussion of three competing perspectives on this rational choice strategy, which we term the ‘accepter,’ ‘yes, but’ and ‘rejecter’ views, we address the following issues. First, how one’s view of ‘rationality’ affects the appropriateness of including ‘satisfaction from voting’ and related concepts in the rational choice model. Second, as a formal analytical matter, can a ‘sense of civic duty to vote’ be comfortably incorporated into the rational choice model of turnout? What other recent related embellishments have been made to that model? Third, even if ‘civic duty’ can be formally incorporated, would this defeat the efficacy of the rational choice model? Fourth, why the answer to the previous question might differ for economists versus political scientists. Fifth, what significant issues are raised by expanding the rational choice model to include civic duty? The analytical contribution of this article is showing how ‘civic duty’ can be incorporated into the rational choice model; the broader conceptual contribution is to evaluate whether and how that innovation advances our understanding of the efficacy of the rational choice approach for understanding voter turnout.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert S. Goldfarb & Lee Sigelman, 2010. "Does ‘Civic Duty’ ‘Solve’ The Rational Choice Voter Turnout Puzzle?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 22(3), pages 275-300, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:22:y:2010:i:3:p:275-300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jtp.sagepub.com/content/22/3/275.abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joseph McMurray, 2015. "The paradox of information and voter turnout," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 13-23, October.

    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:jothpo:v:22:y:2010:i:3:p:275-300. 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: (SAGE Publications). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.