Conventional wisdom holds that asset owners favor parties on the center-right. This assumption, however, ignores the possibility that party positions may shift over time and across contexts. The electoral payoff from ownership thus depends on how the policies of the major parties treat those assets. In this article, we argue that the prediction that asset holders support right-of-center parties rests on the position-taking strategies of parties. We test this expectation with evidence from six elections in Australia and with a dataset of post-election surveys in 25 advanced democracies. Utilizing different measures for key concepts, both analyses support our claims. Study findings identify the supply side of electoral competition as an important condition for patrimonial economic voting and, more generally, confirm the role of parties in mobilizing voters around issues on which they have a competitive advantage.
AdamsJSomer-TopcuZ (2009) Do Parties Adjust Their Policies in Response to Rival Parties’ Policy Shifts? Spatial Theory and the Dynamics of Party Competition in Twenty-Five Postwar Democracies. British Journal of Political Science39: 825–846.
2.
AlesinaARosenthalH (1995) Partisan Politics, Divided Government, and the Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BakkerRde VriesCEdwardsE, et al. (2015) Measuring Party Positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey Trend File, 1999–2010. Party Politics21: 143–152.
4.
BenoitKLaverM (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.
5.
BerryWDDeMerittJHREsareyJ (2010) Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?American Journal of Political Science54: 248–266.
6.
BöhmeltTEzrowLLehrerR, et al. (2016) Party Policy Diffusion. American Political Science Review110: 397–410.
7.
BudgeIKlingemannH-DVolkensA, et al. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
ClarkeHDSandersDStewartMC, et al. (2011) Valence Politics and Electoral Choice in Britain, 2010. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties21: 237–253.
9.
Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) (2017) CSES Module 4 Fourth Advance Release [dataset], 11April 11, 2017 version. Available at: www.cses.org
10.
Costa LoboM (2013) Dimensions of the Economic Vote: Valence, Positional and Patrimony Voting in Portugal’s 2011 Elections. Electoral Studies32: 460–464.
11.
DaltonRJ (2008) The Quantity and Quality of Party Systems: Party System Polarization, its Measurement and its Consequences. Comparative Political Studies41: 899–920.
12.
DaltonRJMcAllisterI (2015) Random Walk or Planned Excursion? Continuity and Change in the Left–Right Positions of Political Parties. Comparative Political Studies48: 759–787.
13.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
14.
ElffM (2009) Social Divisions, Party Positions and Electoral Behavior. Electoral Studies28: 297–308.
15.
EvansGTilleyJ (2012) The Depoliticization of Inequality and Redistribution: Explaining the Decline of Class Voting. Journal of Politics74: 963–976.
16.
FiorinaMP (1981) Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
FraileMLewis-BeckM (2013) Multi-Dimensional Economic Voting in Spain: The 2008 Election. Electoral Studies32: 465–469.
18.
GreenJHoboltS (2008) Owning the Issue Agenda: Party Strategies and Vote Choices in British Elections. Electoral Studies27: 460–476.
19.
GreenJJenningsW (2017) The Politics of Competence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HellwigT (2012) Constructing Accountability: Party Position-Taking and Economic Voting. Comparative Political Studies45: 92–119.
22.
HellwigTMcAllisterI (2016) Does the Economy Matter? Economic Perceptions and the Vote in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science51: 236–254.
23.
HellwigTMcAllisterI (2018) The Impact of Economic Assets on Party Choice in Australia. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties28: 516–534.
24.
JansenGEvansGde GraafND (2013) Class Voting and Left Right Party Positions: A Comparative Study of 15 Western Democracies, 1960–2005. Social Science Research42: 376–400.
25.
KiewietDR (1983) Macroeconomics and Micropolitics: The Electoral Effects of Economic Issues. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
26.
KitscheltHRehmP (2015) Party Alignments, Change and Continuity. In: BeramendiPHäusermannSKitscheltH, et al. (eds) The Politics of Advanced Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.179–201.
27.
LaaksoMTaageperaR (1979) “Effective” Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies12(1): 3–27.
Lewis-BeckMSNadeauRFoucaultM (2013) The Compleat Economic Voter: New Theory and British Evidence. British Journal of Political Science43: 241–261.
30.
McAllisterI (2011) The Australian Voter: Fifty Years of Change. Sydney, NSW, Australia: UNSW Press.
31.
MarksG (2007) Estimating Error in Measures of Party Positioning. Expert, Manifesto and Survey Data Compared. Electoral Studies26: 1–141.
32.
MuellerJ (1970) Presidential Popularity from Truman to Johnson. American Political Science Review64: 18–34.
33.
NadeauRFoucaultMLewis-BeckMS (2010) Patrimonial Economic Voting: Legislative Elections in France. West European Politics33: 1261–1277.
34.
NadeauRFoucaultMLewis-BeckMS (2011) Assets and Risk: A Neglected Dimension of Economic Voting. French Politics9: 97–119.
35.
NadeauRLewis-BeckMSFoucaultM, et al (in press) Wealth and Voter Turnout: Across Twenty-Eight Democracies. Polity.
36.
PerssonMMartinssonJ (2018) Patrimonial Economic Voting and Asset Value -New Evidence from Taxation Register Data. British Journal of Political Science48(3): 825–842.
37.
QuinlanSOkolikjM (2017) Patrimonial Economic Voting: A Cross-National Analysis of Asset Ownership and the Vote. Paper presented at the annual general meeting of the European consortium of political research (ECPR), Oslo, 7–9 September.
38.
StewartMCClarkeHD (2018) Economic Voting. In: FisherJFieldhouseEFranklinMN, et al. (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Elections, Voting Behaviour and Public Opinion. London: Routledge, pp.192–204.
39.
StubagerRLewis-BeckMSNadeauR (2013) Reaching for Profit in the Welfare State: Patrimonial Economic Voting in Denmark. Electoral Studies32: 438–444.
40.
TavitsM (2007) Principle vs. Pragmatism: Policy Shifts and Political Competition. American Journal of Political Science51: 151–165.
41.
VowlesJHellwigTXezonakisG, et al. (2010) Survey of Experts on Political Parties and Globalization. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/17021 (accessed 1 June 2017).
42.
WilliamsLK (2015) It’s all Relative: Spatial Positioning of Parties and Ideological Shifts. European Journal of Political Research54: 141–159.
43.
WilliamsLKSekiKWhittenGD (2016) You’ve Got Some Explaining To Do: The Influence of Economic Conditions and Spatial Competition on Party Strategy. Political Science Research and Methods4: 47–63.
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.
