Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:35:21.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Integrated Model of Vote Choice in Argentina, 2009

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Guido Cataife*
Affiliation:
ICF Macro, Atlanta. [email protected]

Abstract

This article studies voter behavior in Argentina. Do voters vote based on issues? Do they vote based on economic performance? What segments of the population are more or less likely to do so? What is the relative impact of issues and the economy in vote choice? To provide a reliable answer to these questions, this study uses a mixed-logit model of spatial voting with nonpolicy components. Contrary to the common belief, the analysis finds that issue voting is a statistically significant and important factor. Economic voting is prevalent in the middle and upper classes, but not among poor voters.

Type
Research Note
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2011

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

Adams, James, and Merrill, Samuel Iii. 1999. Modeling Party Strategies and Policy Representation in Multiparty Elections: Why Are Strategies So Extreme? American Journal of Political Science 43, 3: 765–91.Google Scholar
Adrogué, Gerardo. 1998. Estudiar la opinión pública. Teoría y datos sobre opinión pública argentina. Desarrollo Económico 38: 387407.Google Scholar
Alvarez, Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 1995. Economics, Issues, and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election. American Journal of Political Science 39: 714–44.Google Scholar
Alvarez, Michael, Nagler, Jonathan, and Bowler, Shaun. 2000. Issues, Economics, and the Dynamics of Multiparty Elections: the British 1987 General Election. American Political Science Review 94: 131–50.Google Scholar
Brusco, Valeria, Nazareno, Marcelo, and Stokes, Susan. 2003. Vote Buying in Argentina. Latin American Research Review 39, 2: 6688.Google Scholar
Cabrera, Ernesto, and Murillo, María V.. 2004a. The 1993 Argentine Elections. Electoral Studies 13: 150–56.Google Scholar
Cabrera, Ernesto, and Murillo, María V.. 2004b. Who Delivers? Partisan Clients in the Argentine Electoral Market. American Journal of Political Science 48: 742–57.Google Scholar
Cantón, Darío, and Jorrat, Jorge R.. 2002. Economic Evaluations, Partisanship, and Social Bases of Presidential Voting in Argentina, 1996 and 1999. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14: 413–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castañeda, Jorge G. 2006. Latin America's Left Turn. Foreign Affairs 85: 2843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chubb, Judith. 1982. Patronage, Power, and Poverty in Southern Italy. New York : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clarín (Buenos Aires). 2009. De Narváez: creo que Ypf, Edenor, y Metrogas deberían ser estatales. June 13. http://weblogs.clarin.com/legislativas2009/archives/2009/06/de_narvaez_creo_que_ypf_edenor_edesur_y_metrogas_deberian_ser_estatales.html. Accessed September 1, 2010.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Kornberg, Allan, and Scotto, Thomas. 2009. Making Political Choices: Canada and the United States. Toronto : University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Domínguez, Jorge I., and McCann, James. 1996. Democratizing Mexico: Public Opinion and Electoral Choices. Baltimore : John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Echegaray, Fabián, and Elordi, Carlos. 2001. Public Opinion, Presidential Popularity, and Economic Reform in Argentina, 1989–1996. In Public Support for Market Reforms in New Democracies, ed. Stokes, Susan C.. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. 187214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gélineau, François, and Remmer, Karen. 2006. Political Decentralization and Electoral Accountability: the Argentine Experience, 1983–2001. British Journal of Political Science 36: 133–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gervasoni, Carlos 1999. El impacto electoral de las reformas económicas en America Latina (1982–1995). America Latina Hoy 22: 93110.Google Scholar
Glasgow, Garret. 2001. Mixed Logit Models for Multiparty Elections. Political Analysis 9: 116–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensher, David A., Rose, John M., and Greene, William H.. 2005. Applied Choice Analysis. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald, and Kiewiet, Roderick. 1979. Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: the Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgements in Congressional Voting. American Journal of Political Science 23: 459527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Gerald H. 1971. Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896–1964. American Political Science Review 65: 131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael. 1988. Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lupu, Noam, and Stokes, Susan. 2009. The Social Bases of Political Parties in Argentina, 1912–2003. Latin American Research Review 44: 5887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Daniel. 1974. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. Zarembka, Paul. New York : Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mora y Araujo, Manuel. 1991. Ensayo y error. Buenos Aires : Planeta.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo. 1994. Delegative Democracy. Journal of Democracy 5: 5569.Google Scholar
Peruzzotti, Enrique. 2001. The Nature of the New Argentine Democracy: the Delegative Democracy Argument Revisited. Journal of Latin American Studies 33: 133–55.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Remmer, Karen. 1991. The Political Impact of Economic Crisis in Latin America in the 1980s. American Political Science Review 85, 3 (September): 777800.Google Scholar
Remmer, Karen, and Gélineau, François. 2003. Subnational Electoral Choice: Economic and Referendum Voting in Argentina, 1983–1999. Comparative Political Studies 36: 801–21.Google Scholar
Roberts, Kenneth, and Wibbels, Erik. 1999. Party Systems and Electoral Volatility in Latin America: a Test of Economic, Institutional, and Structural Explanations. American Political Science Review 93: 575–90.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman, and Cataife, Guido. 2007. A Model of Political Competition with Activists, with an Application to the Elections of 1989 and 1995 in Argentina. Mathematical Social Sciences 53: 213–31.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman, and Sened, Itai. 2006. Multiparty Democracy. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan. 2001. Mandates and Democracy: Neoliberalism by Surprise in Latin America. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan. 2005. Perverse Accountability: a Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review 99: 315–25.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan. 2009. Globalization and the Left in Latin America. Unpublished mss. Department of Political Science, Yale University.Google Scholar
Tufte, Edward. 1978. Political Control of the Economy. Princeton : Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 2010. World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, Jeffrey. 2000. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. New York : South-Western.Google Scholar