IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2012.03327.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Competition, Politics, & Social Media

Author

Listed:
  • Benson Tsz Kin Leung
  • Pinar Yildirim

Abstract

An increasing number of politicians are relying on cheaper, easier to access technologies such as online social media platforms to communicate with their constituency. These platforms present a cheap and low-barrier channel of communication to politicians, potentially intensifying political competition by allowing many to enter political races. In this study, we demonstrate that lowering costs of communication, which allows many entrants to come into a competitive market, can strengthen an incumbent's position when the newcomers compete by providing more information to the voters. We show an asymmetric bad-news-good-news effect where early negative news hurts the challengers more than the positive news benefit them, such that in aggregate, an incumbent politician's chances of winning is higher with more entrants in the market. Our findings indicate that communication through social media and other platforms can intensify competition, how-ever incumbency advantage may be strengthened rather than weakened as an outcome of higher number of entrants into a political market.

Suggested Citation

  • Benson Tsz Kin Leung & Pinar Yildirim, 2020. "Competition, Politics, & Social Media," Papers 2012.03327, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2012.03327
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2012.03327
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Myerson, Roger B., 1993. "Incentives to Cultivate Favored Minorities Under Alternative Electoral Systems," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(4), pages 856-869, December.
    2. Carson, Jamie L. & Engstrom, Erik J. & Roberts, Jason M., 2007. "Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(2), pages 289-301, May.
    3. Assar Lindbeck & Jörgen Weibull, 1987. "Balanced-budget redistribution as the outcome of political competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 273-297, January.
    4. Torsten Persson & Guido Tabellini & Francesco Trebbi, 2003. "Electoral Rules and Corruption," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 958-989, June.
    5. Avinash Dixit & Victor Norman, 1978. "Advertising and Welfare," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, Spring.
    6. Demsetz, Harold, 1982. "Barriers to Entry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 47-57, March.
    7. Andrea Prat, 2002. "Campaign Advertising and Voter Welfare," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(4), pages 999-1017.
    8. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2011. "Competing on Good Politicians," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(1), pages 79-99, February.
    9. Claudio Ferraz & Frederico Finan, 2011. "Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local Governments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1274-1311, June.
    10. David Godes & Dina Mayzlin, 2009. "Firm-Created Word-of-Mouth Communication: Evidence from a Field Test," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 721-739, 07-08.
    11. Camilo García-Jimeno & Pinar Yildirim, 2017. "Matching Pennies on the Campaign Trail: An Empirical Study of Senate Elections and Media Coverage," NBER Working Papers 23198, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Lessem, Rebecca & Snyder, James M., 2006. "The Orientation of Newspaper Endorsements in U.S. Elections, 1940–2002," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 1(4), pages 393-404, October.
    13. Maria Petrova & Ananya Sen & Pinar Yildirim, 2020. "Social Media and Political Contributions: The Impact of New Technology on Political Competition," Papers 2011.02924, arXiv.org.
    14. Cubbin, John S, 1981. "Advertising and the Theory of Entry Barriers," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 48(191), pages 289-298, August.
    15. Porismita Borah, 2014. "Facebook Use in the 2012 USA Presidential Campaign," Public Administration and Information Technology, in: Bogdan Pătruţ & Monica Pătruţ (ed.), Social Media in Politics, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 201-211, Springer.
    16. Yogesh V. Joshi & David J. Reibstein & Z. John Zhang, 2009. "Optimal Entry Timing in Markets with Social Influence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 926-939, June.
    17. David Strömberg, 2004. "Mass Media Competition, Political Competition, and Public Policy," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 71(1), pages 265-284.
    18. Qiaowei Shen & J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2010. "Strategic Entry Before Demand Takes Off," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(8), pages 1259-1271, August.
    19. Bagwell, Kyle, 2007. "The Economic Analysis of Advertising," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 28, pages 1701-1844, Elsevier.
    20. Yuxin Chen & Ozge Turut, 2018. "Entry deterrence/accommodation with imperfect strategic thinking capability," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 175-207, June.
    21. Schmalensee, Richard, 1983. "Advertising and Entry Deterrence: An Exploratory Model," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(4), pages 636-653, August.
    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. Petrova, Maria & Yildirim, Pinar & Sen, Ananya, 2017. "Social Media and Political Donations: New Technology and Incumbency Advantage in the United States," CEPR Discussion Papers 11808, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Maria Petrova & Ananya Sen & Pinar Yildirim, 2020. "Social Media and Political Contributions: The Impact of New Technology on Political Competition," Papers 2011.02924, arXiv.org.
    3. Maria Petrova & Ananya Sen & Pinar Yildirim, 2021. "Social Media and Political Contributions: The Impact of New Technology on Political Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2997-3021, May.
    4. Bierbrauer, Felix J. & Boyer, Pierre C., 2013. "Political competition and Mirrleesian income taxation: A first pass," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 1-14.
    5. Keisuke Hattori & Keisaku Higashida, 2023. "Who should be regulated: Genuine producers or third parties?," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 249-286, April.
    6. Mansuri, Ghazala & Palaniswamy, Nethra & Rao, Vijayendra & Shrestha, Slesh A., 2023. "Money versus Kudos: The impact of incentivizing local politicians in India," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    7. Prato, Carlo & Wolton, Stephane, 2014. "Electoral Imbalances and their Consequences," MPRA Paper 68650, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 26 Nov 2015.
    8. Kovenock, Dan & Roberson, Brian, 2011. "Non-partisan ‘get-out-the-vote’ efforts and policy outcomes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 728-739.
    9. Boyer, Pierre C. & Konrad, Kai A. & Roberson, Brian, 2017. "Targeted campaign competition, loyal voters, and supermajorities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 49-62.
    10. Garz, Marcel & Sörensen, Jil, 2017. "Politicians under investigation: The news Media's effect on the likelihood of resignation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 82-91.
    11. Crutzen, Benoît S.Y. & Sahuguet, Nicolas, 2023. "Comparative politics with intraparty candidate selection," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    12. Guillem Roig, 2017. "Product Compatibility as an Strategy to Hinder Entry Deterrence," Documentos de Trabajo 15773, Universidad del Rosario.
    13. Maskin, Eric & Tirole, Jean, 2019. "Pandering and pork-barrel politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 79-93.
    14. Griffith, Rachel & Dubois, Pierre & O'Connell, Martin, 2014. "The Effects of Banning Advertising on Demand, Supply and Welfare: Structural Estimation on a Junk Food Market," CEPR Discussion Papers 9942, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Ulrich Doraszelski & Sarit Markovich, 2004. "Advertising Dynamics and Competitive Advantage," Computing in Economics and Finance 2004 61, Society for Computational Economics.
    16. Krähmer, Daniel, 2005. "Advertising and Conspicuous Consumption," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 72, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    17. Pastine, Ivan & Pastine, Tuvana, 2012. "Incumbency advantage and political campaign spending limits," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 20-32.
    18. Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini, 2017. "Political selection under alternative electoral rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 257-281, June.
    19. Guillem Roig, 2020. "Product Compatibility Hinders Pre‐Emptive Advertising," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(4), pages 1663-1688, October.
    20. Azamat Valei, 2017. "Advertising Response to New Entry," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp588, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2012.03327. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.