IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v19y2020i4p321-342.html

The democratic limits of political experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Beerbohm

    (1812Harvard University, USA)

  • Ryan Davis

    (6756Brigham Young University, USA)

  • Adam Kern

    (6740Princeton University, USA)

Abstract

Since field experiments in democratic politics influence citizens and the relationships among citizens, they are freighted with normative significance. Yet the distinctively democratic concerns that bear upon such field experiments have not yet been systematically examined. In this paper, we taxonomize such democratic concerns. Our goal is not to justify any of them, but rather to reveal their basic structure, so that they can be scrutinized at further length. We argue that field experiments could be democratically objectionable even if they are not decisive – even if they do not swing the results of elections or other political decisions. Rather, if a class of campaign experiments is objectionable, one reason for this is that they undermine citizens’ equal standing. The ideal of equal standing affords nuanced judgments about the permissibility of field experiments in democratic politics.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Beerbohm & Ryan Davis & Adam Kern, 2020. "The democratic limits of political experiments," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 19(4), pages 321-342, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:19:y:2020:i:4:p:321-342
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X20944401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X20944401
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X20944401?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. Christopher F. Karpowitz & J. Quin Monson & Jessica Robinson Preece, 2017. "How to Elect More Women: Gender and Candidate Success in a Field Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(4), pages 927-943, October.
    2. repec:feb:artefa:0087 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P. & Larimer, Christopher W., 2008. "Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 33-48, February.
    4. Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2009. "Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-18, January.
    5. Healy, Andrew & Malhotra, Neil, 2010. "Random Events, Economic Losses, and Retrospective Voting: Implications for Democratic Competence," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 5(2), pages 193-208, August.
    6. Daniel M. Butler & David E. Broockman, 2011. "Do Politicians Racially Discriminate Against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 463-477, July.
    7. Knack, Steve, 1994. "Does Rain Help the Republicans? Theory and Evidence on Turnout and the Vote," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 79(1-2), pages 187-209, April.
    8. Brady, Henry E. & Mcnulty, John E., 2011. "Turning Out to Vote: The Costs of Finding and Getting to the Polling Place," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(1), pages 115-134, February.
    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. León, Gianmarco, 2017. "Turnout, political preferences and information: Experimental evidence from Peru," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 56-71.
    2. Hoffman, Mitchell & León, Gianmarco & Lombardi, María, 2017. "Compulsory voting, turnout, and government spending: Evidence from Austria," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 103-115.
    3. J. Andrew Harris & Catherine Kamindo & Peter van der Windt, 2020. "Electoral Administration in Fledgling Democracies:Experimental Evidence from Kenya," Working Papers 20200036, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Jan 2020.
    4. Verena Tiefenbeck & Lorenz Goette & Kathrin Degen & Vojkan Tasic & Elgar Fleisch & Rafael Lalive & Thorsten Staake, 2018. "Overcoming Salience Bias: How Real-Time Feedback Fosters Resource Conservation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1458-1476, March.
    5. Marco Frank & David Stadelmann & Benno Torgler, 2020. "Electoral Turnout During States of Emergency and Effects on Incumbent Vote Share," CREMA Working Paper Series 2020-10, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    6. Christine Fauvelle-Aymar & Abel François, 2018. "Place of registration and place of residence: the non-linear detrimental impact of transportation cost on electoral participation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(3), pages 405-440, September.
    7. Niklas Potrafke & Felix Roesel, 2020. "Opening hours of polling stations and voter turnout: Evidence from a natural experiment," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 133-163, January.
    8. Martorana, Marco Ferdinando, 2011. "Voting Behaviour in a dynamic perspective: a survey," MPRA Paper 37592, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Brent B Allred & Michael G Findley & Daniel Nielson & J C Sharman, 2017. "Anonymous shell companies: A global audit study and field experiment in 176 countries," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(5), pages 596-619, July.
    10. C. Y. Cyrus Chu & S. Y. Lin & Wen‐Jen Tsay, 2021. "Estimating the Willingness to Pay for Voting when Absentee Voting is not Allowed," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1380-1393, July.
    11. Cantoni, Enrico & Gazzè, Ludovica & Schafer, Jerome, 2021. "Turnout in concurrent elections: Evidence from two quasi-experiments in Italy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    12. Arezki, Rabah & Djankov, Simeon & Nguyen, Ha & Yotzov, Ivan, 2020. "Reversal of fortune for political incumbents after oil shocks," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118898, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Jöst, Prisca & Lust, Ellen, 2025. "Local context and mobilization in poor communities: Lessons from Kenya, Malawi and Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    14. Godefroy, Raphael & Henry, Emeric, 2016. "Voter turnout and fiscal policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 389-406.
    15. Mariella Gonzales & Gianmarco León-Ciliotta & Luis R. Martínez, 2022. "How Effective Are Monetary Incentives to Vote? Evidence from a Nationwide Policy," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 293-326, January.
    16. Alger, Ingela & Laslier, Jean-François & Dierks, Konrad, 2021. "Does universalization ethics justify participation in large elections?," TSE Working Papers 21-1193, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Apr 2025.
    17. Gagliarducci, Stefano & Paserman, M. Daniele & Patacchini, Eleonora, 2019. "Hurricanes, Climate Change Policies and Electoral Accountability," IZA Discussion Papers 12334, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. repec:osf:osfxxx:93tz4_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Lackner, Mario & Sonnabend, Hendrik, 2021. "Coping with advantageous inequity—Field evidence from professional penalty kicking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    20. Sagamba, MoÏse & Shchetinin, Oleg & Yusupov, Nurmukhammad, 2013. "Do Microloan Officers Want to Lend to the Less Advantaged? Evidence from a Choice Experiment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 182-198.
    21. Grácio, Matilde & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Information, get-out-the-vote messages, and peer influence: Causal effects on political behavior in Mozambique," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:pophec:v:19:y:2020:i:4:p:321-342. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.