IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eti/dpaper/22113.html

Voters' Perceptions and Evaluations of Dynastic Politics in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Hirofumi MIWA
  • Yuko KASUYA
  • Yoshikuni ONO

Abstract

Political family dynasties are a staple part of Japanese politics. According to one study, Japan has the fourth highest number of dynastic politicians among democratic countries, after Thailand, the Philippines, and Iceland. As a result, many scholars have qualitatively studied how these political families are born and managed. In contrast to the abundance of qualitative research, however, very little quantitative research has focused on how Japanese voters view political dynasties. To understand this question, we conducted two nationwide surveys. Our major findings are that while the majority of respondents dislike dynastic candidates, they also value specific attributes of dynastic candidates, such as their political networks, their potential for ministerial appointments, and their ability to bring “pork projects” to their constituencies. These results serve as benchmark information on dynastic politics in Japan. They are also distinct from the findings of existing studies that Japanese voters are neutral about whether a candidate is from a dynastic family in voting decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Hirofumi MIWA & Yuko KASUYA & Yoshikuni ONO, 2022. "Voters' Perceptions and Evaluations of Dynastic Politics in Japan," Discussion papers 22113, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
  • Handle: RePEc:eti:dpaper:22113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/22e113.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Horiuchi, Yusaku & Smith, Daniel M. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2020. "Identifying voter preferences for politicians’ personal attributes: a conjoint experiment in Japan," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 75-91, January.
    2. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    3. Dafoe, Allan & Zhang, Baobao & Caughey, Devin, 2018. "Information Equivalence in Survey Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 399-416, October.
    4. Franchino, Fabio & Zucchini, Francesco, 2015. "Voting in a Multi-dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 221-241, May.
    5. Franchino, Fabio & Zucchini, Francesco, 2015. "Voting in a Multi-dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(02), pages 221-241, May.
    6. Walter J. Stone & Elizabeth N. Simas, 2010. "Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 371-388, April.
    7. Horiuchi, Yusaku & Smith, Daniel M. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2018. "Measuring Voters’ Multidimensional Policy Preferences with Conjoint Analysis: Application to Japan’s 2014 Election," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 190-209, April.
    8. de la Cuesta, Brandon & Egami, Naoki & Imai, Kosuke, 2022. "Improving the External Validity of Conjoint Analysis: The Essential Role of Profile Distribution," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 19-45, January.
    9. Charles McCLEAN & Yoshikuni ONO, 2020. "How Do Voters Evaluate the Age of Politicians?," Discussion papers 20069, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    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. Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    2. Robert Johns & Ann‐Kristin Kölln, 2020. "Moderation and Competence: How a Party's Ideological Position Shapes Its Valence Reputation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 649-663, July.
    3. Fumiya Uchikoshi & Hirofumi Miwa & Yoshikuni Ono, 2025. "Gendered Expectations for College Applications: Experimental Evidence from a Gender Inegalitarian Education Context," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 66(5), pages 1-27, August.
    4. Avidit Acharya & Jens Hainmueller & Yiqing Xu, 2026. "Learning Preferences from Conjoint Data: A Structural Deep Learning Approach," Papers 2604.10845, arXiv.org.
    5. Liza G. Steele & Laird Gallagher, 2025. "Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Refugees During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the U.S," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 2593-2627, December.
    6. Jaroslaw Kantorowicz & Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, 2026. "What matters to people when we sanction states? A conjoint experiment," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(2), pages 209-222, March.
    7. repec:osf:osfxxx:837ws_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Claire L Adida & Adeline Lo & Melina R Platas, 2019. "Americans preferred Syrian refugees who are female, English-speaking, and Christian on the eve of Donald Trump’s election," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, October.
    9. Yuko KASUYA & Hirofumi MIWA & Yoshikuni ONO, 2022. "Why are There More Women in the Upper House?," Discussion papers 22094, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    10. Fergusson Leopoldo & Natalia Garbiras-Díaz & Michael Weintraub, 2026. "Accents as Capital," Documentos CEDE 2026-1, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    11. Lala Muradova & Ross James Gildea, 2021. "Oil wealth and US public support for war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(1), pages 3-19, January.
    12. Alberto López Ortega, 2024. "Do political duos diminish discriminatory voter preferences? Evidence from a combined conjoint experiment," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 106-129, March.
    13. Austin J Knuppe, 2022. "Blowback or overblown? Why civilians under threat support invasive foreign intervention," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(4), pages 478-494, July.
    14. Justesen, Mogens K. & Koob, Sigrid & Smid, Sina, 2025. "Clientelism and programmatic redistribution: Evidence from a conjoint survey experiment in Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    15. Smith, E. Keith & Kolcava, Dennis, 2024. "Measuring Absolute and Relative Levels of Policy Support using Conjoint Choice Experiments," OSF Preprints 837ws, Center for Open Science.
    16. Linnéa Gelot & Prabin B Khadka, 2025. "Social reintegration of former al-Shabaab militants: How formal channels help mitigate threat perceptions," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(6), pages 1820-1838, November.
    17. Tanaka, Ayumu & Ito, Banri & Jinji, Naoto, 2023. "Individual preferences toward inward foreign direct investment: A survey experiment," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    18. Charles McCLEAN & Yoshikuni ONO, 2020. "How Do Voters Evaluate the Age of Politicians?," Discussion papers 20069, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    19. Harrington, Elise, 2024. "Filling gaps in local knowledge and technology assurance: Informal intermediation in the diffusion of off-grid solar technologies in rural Kenya," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(8).
    20. Nguyen, Quynh & Malesky, Edmund, 2021. "Fish or steel? New evidence on the environment-economy trade-off in developing Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    21. Lisanne de Blok & Max Heermann & Julian Schuessler & Dirk Leuffen & Catherine E. de Vries, 2024. "All on board? The role of institutional design for public support for differentiated integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(3), pages 593-604, September.

    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:eti:dpaper:22113. 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: TANIMOTO, Toko (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rietijp.html .

    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.