Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:25:33.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New View of Political Accountability for Economic Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 1985

Henry W. Chappell Jr.  and
William R. Keech
Henry W. Chappell Jr.
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
William R. Keech
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most political support models imply that in evaluating economic performance, voters use a standard that would provide poor predictions of the future and leave the economy vulnerable to manipulation by vote-hungry politicians. Drawing on macroeconomic theory, we develop a simple standard of evaluation which encompasses a concern not only for current economic outcomes, but also for accurately assessed future consequences of current policies. We find that political support for the president can be explained as well by models that assume that voters use this sophisticated standard as by models that assume voter naivete.

Our analysis questions the wisdom of measures typically used to assess voter evaluation of economic performance in a variety of theoretical contexts. The results also help to explain the absence of convincing evidence that governments exploit voter ignorance in manipulating the economy.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , March 1985 , pp. 10 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alt, J. E. The politics of economic expectations. St. Louis: Washington University, unpublished manuscript, 1981.Google Scholar
Alt, J. E. The politics of economic decline: Economic management and political behavior in Britain since 1964. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Arcelus, F., & Meltzer, A. H. The effect of aggregate economic variables on congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 1975, 69, 1232–1239.10.2307/1955283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, N. Does there exist a political business cycle: A Box-Tiao analysis. Public Choice, 1982, 38, 205–209.Google Scholar
Chappell, H. W. Jr. Presidential popularity and macroeconomic performance: Are voters really so naive? Review of Economics and Statistics, 1983, 65, 385–392.10.2307/1924183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, H. W. Jr., & Keech, W. R. The political viability of rule-based monetary policy. Public Choice, in press.Google Scholar
Chappell, H. W. Jr., & Keech, W. R. Welfare consequences of the six-year presidential term evaluated in the context of a model of the U.S. economy. American Political Science Review, 1983, 77, 75–91.10.2307/1956012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dornbusch, R., & Fischer, S. Macroeconomics (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.Google Scholar
Downs, A. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper, 1957.Google Scholar
Edgmand, M. R. Macroeconomics: Theory and policy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1983.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Fischer, S. Long-term contracts, rational expectations, and the optimal money supply rule. Journal of Political Economy, 1977, 55, 191–205.10.1086/260551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froyen, R. T. Macroeconomics: Theories and policies. New York: Macmillan, 1983.Google Scholar
Golden, D. G., & Poterba, J. M. The price of popularity: The political business cycle reexamined. American Journal of Political Science, 1980, 24, 696–714.10.2307/2110954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, R. J. Macroeconomics (2nd ed.). Boston: Little Brown, 1981.Google Scholar
Hibbs, D. A. Jr. The dynamics of political support for American presidents among occupational and partisan groups. American Journal of Political Science, 1982, 26, 312–332. (a)10.2307/2111042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbs, D. A. Jr. Economic outcomes and political support for British governments among occupational classes: A dynamic analysis. American Political Science Review, 1982, 76, 259–279. (b)10.1017/S0003055400186976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbs, D. A. Jr. On the demand for economic outcomes; Macroeconomic performance and mass political support in the United States, Great Britain and Germany. Journal of Politics, 1982, 44, 426–462. (c)10.2307/2130595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbs, D. A. Jr. & Vasilatos, N. Macroeconomic performancce and mass political support in the United States and Great Britain. In Hibbs, D. A. Jr. & Fassbender, H. (Eds.). Contemporary political economy. New York: North Holland, 1981.Google Scholar
Kenski, H. C. The impact of economic conditions on presidential popularity. Journal of Politics, 1977, 39, 764–773.10.2307/2129651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, S. Explaining presidential popularity. American Political Science Review, 1978, 72, 506–522.10.2307/1954107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O. Jr. Politics, parties and pressure groups (5th ed.). New York: Crowell, 1964.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. Jr. The responsible electorate. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966.10.4159/harvard.9780674497764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, G. H. Short-term fluctuations in U.S. voting behavior, 1896–1964. American Political Science Review,, 1971, 65, 131–143.10.2307/1955049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, J. H., & West, D. M. Economic expectations and voting behavior in the United States House and Senate elections. American Political Science Review, 1981, 75, 436–447.10.2307/1961376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, C. D. A political model of the business cycle. Journal of Political Economy, 1977, 85, 239–263.10.1086/260561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maisel, S. Macroeconomics: Theories and policies. New York: Norton, 1982.Google Scholar
Minford, P., & Peel, D. The political theory of the business cycle. European Economic Review, 1982, 17, 253–270.10.1016/S0014-2921(82)80016-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, K. R. Political manipulation of the economy: A closer look at political business cycles. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 1983, 13, 37–49.Google Scholar
Monroe, K. R., & Levi, M. D. Economic expectations, economic uncertainty, and presidential popularity. In Monroe, K. R. (Ed.). The political process and economic change. New York: Agathon, 1983, 214–231.Google Scholar
Mueller, J. E. Presidential popularity from Truman to Johnson. American Political Science Review, 1970, 64, 18–34.10.2307/1955610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, J. E. War, presidents, and public opinion. New York: Wiley, 1973.Google Scholar
Nordhaus, W. D. The political business cycle. Review of Economic Studies, 1975, 42, 169–189.10.2307/2296528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paldam, M. A preliminary survey of the theories and findings on vote and popularity functions. European Journal of Political Research, 1981, 9, 181–199.10.1111/j.1475-6765.1981.tb00598.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. B. Jr. Representative or accountable party systems in parliamentary democracies. University of Rochester, unpublished manuscript, 1982.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, G. B., & Zechman, M. J. An aggregate model of presidential voting: 1896–1972. University of North Carolina, unpublished, no date.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. The semisovereign people: A realist's view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960 Google Scholar
Stigler, G. J. General economic conditions and national elections. American Economic Review, 1973, 63, 160–167.Google Scholar
Stimson, J. A. Public support for American presidents: A cyclical model. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1976, 40, 1–21.10.1086/268264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatom, J. A. Potential output and the recent productivity decline. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 1982, 64 (January), 3–16.Google Scholar
Tufte, E. R. Determinants of the outcomes of midterm congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 1975, 69, 812–826.10.2307/1958391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.