IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v57y2023i1d10.1007_s11135-022-01436-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of party preferences in explaining acceptance of freedom restrictions in a pandemic context: the Italian case

Author

Listed:
  • Riccardo Ladini

    (University of Milan)

  • Nicola Maggini

    (University of Milan)

Abstract

As a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, several governments adopted disease containment measures limiting individual freedom, especially freedom of movement. Our contribution aims at studying the role played by party preferences in explaining attitudes towards those freedom limitations during the pandemic, taking into account the moderating role played by confidence in institutions and collectivist-individualistic orientations. Focussing on Italy, as the first western democracy to be hit by Covid-19 and to adopt harsh restrictive measures, we analyse data coming from the ResPOnsE COVID-19 project. Our study initially investigates whether attitudes towards freedom restrictions are associated with the dynamics of the pandemic and the institutional responses to it. Then, through multilevel regression models, we test several hypotheses about the relationship between party preferences, confidence in institutions, collectivistic orientations and public acceptance of Covid-19 containment measures limiting individual freedom. Findings show that party preferences are associated with different attitudes towards freedom restrictions to contain the pandemic, but this occurs only if people have individualistic orientations. Collectivistic orientations and confidence in institutions are positively associated with acceptance of freedom restrictions, regardless of party preferences. As regards the latter, neither a classical ideological explanation (conservative people more inclined to accept limitations to personal freedoms) nor a government-opposition explanation (supporters of government parties more inclined to accept freedom restrictions) seems to be adequate to fully account for the mechanisms behind acceptance of Covid-19 harsh containment measures. Thus, we offer an alternative ideological explanation by pointing out the ambiguous nature of contemporary right-wing populisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Riccardo Ladini & Nicola Maggini, 2023. "The role of party preferences in explaining acceptance of freedom restrictions in a pandemic context: the Italian case," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 99-123, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:57:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-022-01436-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-022-01436-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-022-01436-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-022-01436-3?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mueller, John E., 1970. "Presidential Popularity from Truman to Johnson1," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(1), pages 18-34, March.
    2. McClosky, Herbert, 1964. "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 361-382, June.
    3. John M. Barrios & Yael Hochberg, 2020. "Risk Perception Through the Lens of Politics in the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic," NBER Working Papers 27008, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Bargain, Olivier & Aminjonov, Ulugbek, 2020. "Trust and compliance to public health policies in times of COVID-19," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    5. Stasavage, David, 2020. "Democracy, Autocracy, and Emergency Threats: Lessons for COVID-19 From the Last Thousand Years," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(S1), pages 1-17, December.
    6. McClosky, Herbert, 1964. "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 361-382, June.
    7. Darren W. Davis & Brian D. Silver, 2004. "Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 28-46, January.
    8. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    9. Moreno Mancosu & Salvatore Vassallo & Cristiano Vezzoni, 2017. "Believing in Conspiracy Theories: Evidence from an Exploratory Analysis of Italian Survey Data," South European Society and Politics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 327-344, July.
    10. Anna Wnuk & Tomasz Oleksy & Dominika Maison, 2020. "The acceptance of Covid-19 tracking technologies: The role of perceived threat, lack of control, and ideological beliefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, September.
    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. April K. Clark & Michael Clark & Marie A. Eisenstein, 2014. "Stability and Change," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, March.
    2. Michael Bayerlein & Vanessa A. Boese & Scott Gates & Katrin Kamin & Syed Mansoob Murshed, 2021. "Populism and COVID-19: How Populist Governments (Mis)Handle the Pandemic," Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy, now publishers, vol. 2(3), pages 389-428, December.
    3. Bjørnskov, Christian, 2005. "Political Ideology and Economic Freedom," Working Papers 05-8, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    4. Boese-Schlosser, Vanessa & Bayerlein, Michael & Gates, Scott & Kamin, Katrin & Murshed, Syed Mansoob, 2023. "Trust issues? How being socialised in an autocracy shapes vaccine uptake," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Transformations of Democracy SP V 2023-502, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Christian Weyand, 2013. "Why Political Elites Support Governmental Transparency. Self-Interest, Anticipation of Voters' Preferences or Socialization?," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 04-02, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
    6. Nam, Taewoo, 2019. "Understanding the gap between perceived threats to and preparedness for cybersecurity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    7. Schäfer, Armin, 2011. "Republican liberty and compulsory voting," MPIfG Discussion Paper 11/17, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    8. William D. Nordhaus, 1989. "Alternative Approaches to the Political Business Cycle," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 20(2), pages 1-68.
    9. Abel Brodeur & David Gray & Anik Islam & Suraiya Bhuiyan, 2021. "A literature review of the economics of COVID‐19," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 1007-1044, September.
    10. John M. Barrios & Efraim Benmelech & Yael V. Hochberg & Paola Sapienza & Luigi Zingales, 2020. "Civic Capital and Social Distancing during the Covid-19 Pandemic," NBER Working Papers 27320, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Bogdan-Lucian Dospinescu, 2015. "Business Cycles, Electoral Cycles. Toward A Theoretical Frame Of Interaction," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 0, pages 170-177, July.
    12. Henrik Jordahl, 2006. "An economic analysis of voting in Sweden," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 251-265, June.
    13. Cendales, Andrés & Mora, Jhon & Arroyo, Santiago, 2015. "Sobre las democracias locales en el Pacífico colombiano y su incidencia en la política pública de agua potable en el periodo 2008-2011," Revista Lecturas de Economía, Universidad de Antioquia, CIE, issue 83, pages 161-192, February.
    14. O'Connor, Cliodhna & O'Connell, Nicola & Burke, Emma & Dempster, Martin & Graham, Christopher D. & Scally, Gabriel & Zgaga, Lina & Nolan, Ann & Nicolson, Gail & Mather, Luke & Barry, Joseph & Crowley,, 2021. "Bordering on crisis: A qualitative analysis of focus group, social media, and news media perspectives on the Republic of Ireland-Northern Ireland border during the ‘first wave’ of the COVID-19 pandemi," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    15. Arnesen, Sveinung, 2012. "Forecasting Norwegian elections: Out of work and out of office," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 789-796.
    16. Geys, Benny & Vermeir, Jan, 2008. "The political cost of taxation: new evidence from German popularity ratings [Besteuerung und Popularität von Politikern: Neue Ergebnisse für die Deutsche Bundesregierung 1978-2003]," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Processes and Governance SP II 2008-06, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    17. Bernhard Klingen, 2011. "A Public Choice Perspective on Defense and Alliance Policy," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Blayac, Thierry & Dubois, Dimitri & Duchêne, Sébastien & Nguyen-Van, Phu & Ventelou, Bruno & Willinger, Marc, 2022. "What drives the acceptability of restrictive health policies: An experimental assessment of individual preferences for anti-COVID 19 strategies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    19. Berlemann, Michael & Enkelmann, Sören, 2014. "The economic determinants of U.S. presidential approval: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 41-54.
    20. Robert R. Prechter Jr. & Deepak Goel & Wayne D. Parker & Matthew Lampert, 2012. "Social Mood, Stock Market Performance, and U.S. Presidential Elections," SAGE Open, , vol. 2(4), pages 21582440124, November.

    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:spr:qualqt:v:57:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-022-01436-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.