Experimental evidence suggests that decision makers with proposal power are held responsible for collective decisions. In the case of coalition governments, voter heuristics assign responsibility for economic outcomes to individual parties, directing the economic vote toward the Prime Minister party. Using extensive survey data from 1988 to 2010 in 28 democracies, we demonstrate that voters also identify the Finance Minister party as responsible depending on whether the coalition context exaggerates or mutes its perceived agenda power. When parties take ownership for particular policy areas, and decision-making is compartmentalized, voters perceive the Finance Minister as having proposal power and it receives a larger economic vote. Online survey experiments in Ireland and the Netherlands confirm that subjects employ compartmentalization signals to identify, and punish, coalition parties with proposal power.
AndersonC. J. (2000). Economic voting and political context: A comparative perspective. Electoral Studies, 19, 151–170.
2.
AngelovaM.KönigT.ProkschS.-O. (2016). Responsibility attribution in coalition governments: Evidence from Germany. Electoral Studies, 43, 133–149.
3.
BäckH.DebusM.DumontP. (2011). Who gets what in coalition governments? Predictors of portfolio allocation in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 50, 441–478.
4.
BakerS. R.BloomN.DavisS. J. (2016). Measuring economic policy uncertainty*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131, 1593–1636.
5.
BanerjeeA.GreenD. P.McManusJ.PandeR. (2014). Are poor voters indifferent to whether elected leaders are criminal or corrupt? A vignette experiment in rural India. Political Communication, 31, 391–407.
6.
BargstedM. A.KedarO. (2009). Coalition-targeted Duvergerian voting: How expectations affect voter choice under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 307–323.
7.
BawnK.RosenbluthF. (2006). Short versus long coalitions: Electoral accountability and the size of the public sector. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 251–265.
8.
BoasT. C.HidalgoF. D.MeloM. A. (2019). Norms versus action: Why voters fail to sanction malfeasance in Brazil. American Journal of Political Science, 63, 385–400.
9.
BowlerS.GschwendT.IndridasonI. H. (2016). Coalition policy perceptions. Manuscript.
10.
CoxG. W.MagarE. (1999). How much is majority status in the us congress worth?American Political Science Review, 93, 299–310.
11.
DafoeA.ZhangB.CaugheyD. (2018). Information equivalence in survey experiments. Political Analysis, 26(4), 399–416.
12.
De WinterL. (2002). Parties and government formation, portfolio allocation, and policy definition. In LutherK. R.Müller-RommelF. (Eds.) Political parties in the new Europe: Political and analytical challenges. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
DebusM.StegmaierM.TosunJ. (2014). Economic voting under coalition governments: Evidence from Germany. Political Science Research and Methods, 2(1), 49–67.
14.
DöringH.ManowP. (2011). Parliament and government composition database (parlgov). An infrastructure for empirical information on parties, elections and governments in modern democracies. Development Version. Available at: http://dvn.eudo.eu/dvn/dv/parlgov (Accessed February 19, 2016).
15.
DuchR. M.Falcó-GimenoA. (2021). Replication Data for: Collective Decision Making and the Economic Vote. 10.7910/DVN/9ZBLOU.
16.
DuchR. M.MayJ.ArmstrongD. A. (2010). Coalition-directed voting in multiparty democracies. American Political Science Review, 104(04), 698–719.
17.
DuchR.PrzepiorkaW.StevensonR. (2015). Responsibility attribution for collective decision makers. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 372–389.
18.
DuchR. M.StevensonR. (2008). The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. CambridgeCambridge University Press.
19.
DuchR.StevensonR. (2013). Voter perceptions of agenda power and attribution of responsibility for economic performance. Electoral Studies, 13, (32), 512–516.
20.
EckerA.MeyerT. M. (2020). Coalition bargaining duration in multiparty democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 261–280.
21.
Falcó-GimenoA. (2014). The use of control mechanisms in coalition governments: The role of preference tangentiality and repeated interactions. Party Politics, 20(3), 341–356.
22.
FortunatoD. (2019). The electoral implications of coalition policy making. British Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 59–80.
23.
FortunatoD.LinN. C. N.StevensonR. T.TromborgM. W. (2021). Attributing policy influence under coalition governance. American Political Science Review, 115(1), 252–268.
24.
FortunatoD.LoftisM. W. (2018). Cabinet durability and fiscal discipline. American Political Science Review, 112(4), 939–953.
25.
FortunatoD.StevensonR. T. (2013). Perceptions of partisan ideologies: The effect of coalition participation. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 459–477.
26.
FortunatoD.StevensonR. T.VonnahmeG. (2016). Context and political knowledge: Explaining cross-national variation in partisan left-right knowledge. Journal of Politics, 78(4), 1211–1228.
27.
GoldsteinD. G.GigerenzerG. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75–90.
28.
HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD.YamamotoT. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(8), 2395–2400.
29.
HallerbergM.StrauchR.Von HagenJ. (2007). The design of fiscal rules and forms of governance in european union countries. European Journal of Political Economy, 23(2), 338–359.
30.
HallerbergM.StrauchR. R.Von HagenJ. (2009). Fiscal governance in Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
HallerbergM.Von HagenJ. (1999). Electoral institutions, cabinet negotiations, and budget deficits in the european union. In PoterbaJ. M.Von HagenJ. (Eds.) Fiscal institutions and fiscal performance, (pp. 209–232). University of Chicago Press.
32.
HealyA.LenzG. S. (2014). Substituting the end for the whole: Why voters respond primarily to the election-year economy. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 31–47.
33.
HerzogA.Jankin MikhaylovS. (2020). Intra-cabinet politics and fiscal governance in times of austerity. Political Science Research and Methods, 12, 1–16.
34.
HoboltS.TilleyJ.BanducciS. (2013). Clarity of responsibility: How government cohesion conditions performance voting. European Journal of Political Research, 52(2), 164–187.
35.
IncertiT. (2019). Corruption information and vote share: A meta-analysis and lessons for survey experiments. Working paper.
36.
JochimsenB.ThomasiusS. (2014). The perfect finance minister: Whom to appoint as finance minister to balance the budget. European Journal of Political Economy, 34, 390–408.
37.
KayserM. A.GrafstromC. (2019). The luxury goods vote: partisan asymmetry in electoral accountability for the economy. Working paper.
38.
KayserM. A.PeressM. (2012). Benchmarking across borders: Electoral accountability and the necessity of comparison. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 661–684.
39.
KedarO. (2005). When moderate voters prefer extreme parties: policy balancing in parliamentary elections. American Political Science Review, 99(2), 185–199.
40.
KingG.TomzM.WittenbergJ. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 347–361.
41.
KlüverH.BäckH. (2019). Coalition agreements, issue attention, and cabinet governance. Comparative Political Studies, 52(13–14), 1995–2031.
42.
LaverM. J.ShepsleK. A. (1996). Making and breaking governments: Cabinets and legislatures in parliamentary democracies. CambridgeCambridge University Press.
43.
LaverM.ShepsleK. A. (1999a). government formation and survival: A rejoinder to warwick’s reply. British Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 412–415.
44.
LaverM.ShepsleK. A. (1999b). Understanding government survival: empirical exploration or analytical models?British Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 395–401.
45.
LinN. C. N.StevensonR.Wessel TromborgM.FortunatoD. (2017). Gamson’s law and voters’ perceptions of portfolio allocation. European Journal of Political Research, 56(4), 912–940.
46.
LuebbertG. M. (1986). Comparative democracy: Policymaking and governing coalitions in Europe and Israel. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
47.
MartinL. W.VanbergG. (2008). Coalition government and political communication. Political Research Quarterly, 61(3), 502–516.
48.
MartinL. W.VanbergG. (2011). Parliaments and Coalitions: The Role of Legislative Institutions in Multiparty Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
MartinL. W.VanbergG. (2013). Multiparty government, fiscal institutions, and public spending. The Journal of Politics, 75(4), 953–967.
50.
MartinL. W.VanbergG. (2014). Parties and policymaking in multiparty governments: The legislative median, ministerial autonomy, and the coalition compromise. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 979–996.
51.
ParkJ. Y. (2019). Punishing without rewards? A comprehensive examination of the asymmetry in economic voting. Electoral Studies, 57, 1–18.
52.
PerssonT.RolandG.TabelliniG. (2007). Electoral rules and government spending in parliamentary democracies. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(2), 155–188.
53.
PowellJ.BinghamG.WhittenG. D. (1993). A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 391–414.
54.
SagarzazuI.KlüverH. (2017). Coalition governments and party competition: political communication strategies of coalition parties. Political Science Research and Methods, 5(2), 333–349.
55.
SekiK.WilliamsL. K. (2014). Updating the party government data set. Electoral Studies, 34(2), 270–279.
56.
The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (2017). The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems CSES Module 4 Fourth Advance Release. The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems [producer]. [distributor].
57.
VolkensA.LacewellO.LehmannP.RegelS.SchultzeH.WernerA. (2014). The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2014b. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
58.
WarwickP. V. (1999a). Getting the assumptions right: a reply to laver and shepsle. British Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 402–412.
59.
WarwickP. V. (1999b). Ministerial autonomy or ministerial accommodation? Contested bases of government survival in parliamentary democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 369–394.
60.
WeingastB. R.MarshallW. J. (1988). The industrial organization of congress; or, why legislatures, like firms, are not organized as markets. The Journal of Political Economy, 96, 132–163.
61.
WilliamsL. K.StegmaierM.DebusM. (2017). Relaxing the constant economic vote restriction: Economic evaluations and party support in Germany. Party politics, 23(3), 286–296.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
