Elections in the time of plague: analysis of ruling parties’ electoral support during the pandemic
https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2022.02.05
Abstract
In the article we used the method of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to investigate the results of 43 electoral campaigns in different countries of the World, held in the context of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. As far as socioeconomic indicators worsened almost everywhere, we aimed to identify the mechanism of the retrospective economic voting as creating potentially critical risks for the ruling parties. Since, in practice, countries have roughly halved in terms of the increase or decrease in electoral support for incumbents, the authors examined the effect of factors associated with the degree of deterioration of the socio-economic situation, state restrictive measures and the development of the pandemic itself, also taking into account the features of the political regime. Nine scenarios were identified, representing various combinations of conditions, leading in six cases to an increase in support for the incumbent, and in three cases to its decrease. The study showed that the classic retrospective voting in terms of punishing incumbent for a downturn in the economy is more often manifested in democratic regimes. It is also noteworthy that socio-economic factors, which are the consequences of a pandemic, appear to be more significant to the electorate than factors directly related to the health issues. In particular, a relatively low level of GDP decline is always present in scenarios of support growth for an incumbent, and a significant increase in unemployment is always present in all scenarios of a decrease in its rating. A feature of authoritarian regimes is that voters are more inclined to support the ruling parties with mild restrictive measures, while in democracies people are ready to vote for incumbents even in the case of tough, but in some way effective restrictions. In general, restrictive measures (like their absence) always affect elections, but their effect depends on other conditions. In consideration of the natural limitations in the form of a sample of countries, the peculiarities of the method used and the further development of the pandemic, it seems important to continue such studies in order to clarify the conclusions and perspectives.
About the Authors
R. F. TurovskyRussian Federation
Moscow
E. A. Iokhim
Russian Federation
Moscow
References
1. Achen C.H., Bartels L.M. Blind retrospection electoral responses to drought, flu, and shark attacks. Estudio, Working Paper. 2004, N 199, P. 1-40.
2. Achen C.H., Bartels L.M. Democracy for realists: why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton: Princeton university press, 2017, 408 p.
3. Adams-Prassl A., Golin T.B.M., Rauh C. Inequality in the impact of the Coronavirus shock: evidence from real time surveys. IZA DP (Institute of labor economics. Discussion paper series). 2020, N 13183, P. 1-49.
4. Amat F., Arenas A., Falco-Gimeno A., Munoz J. Pandemics meet democracy. Experimental evidence from the COVID-19 crisis in Spain. SocArXiv. 2021, P. 1-31. DOl:. DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/dkusw
5. Barbieri P.N., Bonini B. Political orientation and adherence to social distancing during the COVtDD19 pandemic in Italy. Economia politica. 2021, Vol. 38, P. 483-504. DOI: 10.1007/s40888-021-00224-w
6. Bar-On T., Molas B. (eds). Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic by the radical right: scapegoating, conspiracy theories and new narratives. Berlin: Ibidem-Verlag, 2020, 210 p.
7. Bechtel M.M., Hainmueller J. How lasting is voter gratitude? An analysis of the short-and long-term electoral returns to beneficial policy. American journal of political science. 2011, Vol. 55, N 4, P. 852-868. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00533.x
8. Bodet M.A., Thomas M., Tessiera C.Come hell or high water: An investigation of the effects of a natural disaster on a local election. Electoral studies. 2016, Vol. 43, P. 85-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2016.06.003
9. Bovan K., Banai B., Pavela Banai I. Do natural disasters affect voting behavior? Evidence from Croatian floods. PLOS currents disasters. 2018, P. 1-17. DOI: 10.1371/currents.dis.cbf57c8ac3b239ba51ccc801d3362c07
10. Cole S., Healy A., Werker E. Do voters demand responsive governments? Evidence from Indian disaster relief. Journal of development economics. 2012, Vol. 97, N 2, P. 167-181. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.05.005
11. Eriksson L.M. Winds of change: voter blame and storm Gudrun in the 2006 Swedish parliamentary election. Electoral studies. 2016, Vol. 41, P. 129-142. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2015.12.003
12. Fiorina M.P. Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale university press, 1981, 192 p.
13. Gasper J.T., Reeves A. Make it rain? Retrospection and the attentive electorate in the context of natural disasters. American journal of political science. 2011, Vol. 55, N 2, P. 340-355. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00503.x
14. Healy A., Malhotra, N. Random events, economic losses, and retrospective voting: Implications for democratic competence. Quarterly journal ofpolitical science. 2010, Vol. 5, N 2, P. 193-208. DOI: 10.1561/100.00009057
15. Heersink B., Peterson B.D., Jenkins J.A. Disasters and elections: estimating the net effect of damage and relief in historical perspective. Political analysis. 2017, Vol. 25, N 2, P. 260-268. DOI: 10.1017/pan.2017.7
16. James T.S., Alihodzic S. When is it democratic to postpone an election? Elections during natural disasters, COVID-19, and emergency situations. Election law journal. 2020, Vol. 19, N 3, P. 344-362. DOI: 10.1089/elj.2020.0642
17. Karwowski M., Kowal M., Groyyechka A., Bialek M., Lebuda I., Sorokowska A., Sorokowski P. When in danger, turn right: does Covid-19 threat promote social conservatism and right-wing presidential candidates? Human etholigy. 2020, N 35, P. 37-48. DOI: 10.22330/he/35/037-048
18. Landman T., Splendore L. Di G. Pandemic democracy: elections and COVID-19. Journal of risk research. 2020, Vol. 23, N 7-8, P. 1060-1066. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1765003
19. Noury A., Francois A., Gergaud O., Garel A. How does COVID-19 affect electoral participation? evidence from the French municipal elections. PLoS ONE. 2021, Vol. 16, N 2, P. 1-16. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247026
20. Pulejo M., Querubin P. Electoral concerns reduce restrictive measures during the COVID-19. Journal of public economics. 2021, N 198, P. 1-7. DOI: 10.1016/jjpubeco.2021.104387
21. Ragin C. Fuzzy set social science. Chicago, London: University of Chicago press, 2000, 370 p.
22. Ragin C. Redesigning social inquiry. Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, London: University of Chicago press, 2008, 225 p.
23. Rubin O. The political dynamics of voter retrospection and disaster responses.
24. Disasters. 2020, Vol. 44, N 2, P. 239-261. DOI: 10.1111/disa.12376 EDN: EYVXLG
25. Safarpour A.C. Hanmer M.J. Information about Coronavirus exposure effects attitudes towards voting methods. Journal of experimental political science. 2020, Vol. 9, N 1, P. 1-5. DOI: 10.1017/XPS.2020.38
26. Sebena M., Turcsanyi R.Q. Divided national identity and COVID-19. The China review. 2021, Vol. 21, N 2, P. 35-63.