IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nip/nipewp/05-2018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Procedural Fairness, the Economy, and Support for Political Authorities (Forthcoming at Political Psychology (submitted pre-print version))

Author

Listed:
  • Luís Aguiar-Conraria

    (Department of Economics/NIPE, University of Minho)

  • Pedro C. Magalhães

    (Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon)

Abstract

A vast literature in social and organizational psychology suggests that support for authorities is driven both by the outcomes they deliver and by the extent to which they employ fair decision-making processes. Furthermore, that literature describes a processoutcome interaction, through which the effects of outcome favorability are reduced as process fairness increases. However, very few studies have been conducted to determine whether such interaction is also present in the explanation of support for political authorities. Here, we start by analyzing whether individual perceptions of the political system’s procedural fairness moderate the well-known relationship between perceived economic performance and government approval. Then, we explore the implications of such process-outcome interaction to the phenomenon of “economic voting,” testing whether impartiality in governance moderates the effect of objective economic performance on incumbent support. In both cases, we show that the interaction between processes and outcomes indeed extends beyond the organizational contexts where it has been previously observed, with important implications for the study of political support.

Suggested Citation

  • Luís Aguiar-Conraria & Pedro C. Magalhães, 2018. "Procedural Fairness, the Economy, and Support for Political Authorities (Forthcoming at Political Psychology (submitted pre-print version))," NIPE Working Papers 05/2018, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
  • Handle: RePEc:nip:nipewp:05/2018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nipe.eeg.uminho.pt/Uploads/WP_2018/NIPE_WP_05_2018.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2005. "Beyond outcomes: measuring procedural utility," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 57(1), pages 90-111, January.
    2. Wilson, Sven E. & Butler, Daniel M., 2007. "A Lot More to Do: The Sensitivity of Time-Series Cross-Section Analyses to Simple Alternative Specifications," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 101-123, April.
    3. Pop-Eleches, Cristian & Pop-Eleches, Grigore, 2012. "Targeted Government Spending and Political Preferences," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 7(3), pages 285-320, June.
    4. Bruno Frey & Matthias Benz & Alois Stutzer, 2004. "Introducing Procedural Utility: Not Only What, but Also How Matters," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(3), pages 377-401, September.
    5. Marco Manacorda & Edward Miguel & Andrea Vigorito, 2011. "Government Transfers and Political Support," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 1-28, July.
    6. Sedef Turper & Kees Aarts, 2017. "Political Trust and Sophistication: Taking Measurement Seriously," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 130(1), pages 415-434, January.
    7. Beck, Nathaniel & Katz, Jonathan N., 1995. "What To Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 634-647, September.
    8. Nannestad, Peter & Paldam, Martin, 1994. "The VP-Function: A Survey of the Literature on Vote and Popularity Functions after 25 Years," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 79(3-4), pages 213-245, June.
    9. Michael Lewis-Beck & Mary Stegmaier, 2013. "The VP-function revisited: a survey of the literature on vote and popularity functions after over 40 years," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 157(3), pages 367-385, December.
    10. Easton, David, 1975. "A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 435-457, October.
    11. Drazen, Allan & Eslava, Marcela, 2010. "Electoral manipulation via voter-friendly spending: Theory and evidence," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 39-52, May.
    12. Chen, Ya-Ru & Brockner, Joel & Greenberg, Jerald, 2003. "When is it "a pleasure to do business with you?" The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 1-21.
    13. Stefan Krause & Fabio Méndez, 2009. "Corruption And Elections: An Empirical Study For A Cross‐Section Of Countries," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 179-200, July.
    14. Arceneaux, Kevin & Nickerson, David W., 2009. "Modeling Certainty with Clustered Data: A Comparison of Methods," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 177-190, April.
    15. Christopher Carman, 2010. "The Process is the Reality: Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and Participatory Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58, pages 731-751, October.
    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. Pedro C. Magalhães & Luís Aguiar-Conraria, 2017. "Procedural Fairness and Economic Voting," NIPE Working Papers 07/2017, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    2. Lehmann, M. Christian & Matarazzo, Hellen, 2019. "Voters’ response to in-kind transfers: Quasi-experimental evidence from prescription drug cost-sharing in Brazil," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    3. Carozzi, Felipe & Repetto, Luca, 2019. "Distributive politics inside the city? The political economy of Spain's Plan E," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 85-106.
    4. Patricia Justino & Bruno Martorano, 2016. "Redistribution, inequality and political participation: Evidence from Mexico during the 2008 financial crisis," WIDER Working Paper Series 140, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    5. Vortherms, Samantha A., 2019. "Disaggregating China’s local political budget cycles: “Righting” the U," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 95-109.
    6. Bruno Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2010. "Happiness and public choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 144(3), pages 557-573, September.
    7. Patricia Justino & Bruno Martorano, 2016. "Redistribution, inequality and political participation: Evidence from Mexico during the 2008 financial crisis," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-140, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    8. Chortareas, Georgios & Logothetis, Vasileios & Papandreou, Andreas A., 2016. "Political budget cycles and reelection prospects in Greece's municipalities," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-13.
    9. Oana Borcan, 2016. "The illicit beneficts of local party alignment in national elections," University of East Anglia School of Economics Working Paper Series 2016-10, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    10. Elinder, Mikael & Jordahl, Henrik & Poutvaara, Panu, 2015. "Promises, policies and pocketbook voting," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 177-194.
    11. Astrid Dannenberg & Carlo Gallier, 2020. "The choice of institutions to solve cooperation problems: a survey of experimental research," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 716-749, September.
    12. Raffaella Santolini, 2017. "Electoral Rules And Public Spending Composition: The Case Of Italian Regions," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 35(3), pages 551-577, July.
    13. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    14. Wong, Linda & van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Clarke, Judith A., 2012. "The Impact of Agriculture on Waterfowl Abundance: Evidence from Panel Data," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-14, August.
    15. Alois Stutzer & Bruno S. Frey, 2010. "Happiness and Political Institutions," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 8(4), pages 32-36, 01.
    16. Krzywdzinski, Martin, 2014. "Do investors avoid strong trade unions and labour regulation? Social dumping in the European automotive and chemical industries," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 926-945.
    17. Sana El Harbi & Gilles Grolleau & Insaf Bekir, 2014. "Substituting piracy with a pay-what-you-want option: does it make sense?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 277-297, April.
    18. Linda Gonçalves Veiga, 2013. "Voting functions in the EU-15," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 157(3), pages 411-428, December.
    19. Carillo, Mario Francesco, 2018. "Fascistville: Mussolini's New Towns and the Persistence of Neo-Fascism," MPRA Paper 96236, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 03 Oct 2019.
    20. John Maloney & Andrew Pickering, 2015. "Voting and the economic cycle," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 119-133, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    procedural fairness; process-outcome interaction; political support; executive approval; economic voting;
    All these keywords.

    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:nip:nipewp:05/2018. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nipampt.html .

    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: NIPE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nipampt.html .

    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.