Are prime ministers held accountable for their government’s performance? The personalisation of parliamentary elections and subsequent voting behaviour based on the personality of party leaders questions the accountability of elected governments. In this article, I analyse the confounding of prime ministers’ leader effects by voters’ evaluation of government performance to examine whether prime ministers are held accountable for the performance of their government. I use individual-level data from British, Danish, and German elections and a natural experiment at the German state level to show that voters hold prime ministers personally accountable. The findings constitute an important extension of electoral accountability and have implications for the study of personalisation and presidentialisation in parliamentary democracies.
AartsKBlaisASchmittH (2011) Political Leaders and Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AdamsJFMerrillIIISGrofmanB (2005) A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AndersenJG (2007) Danish election study 2005: The Danish National Election Study. Centre for Survey and Survey/Register Data (CSSR). Available at: http://www.valgprojektet.dk/default.asp
4.
AndersenJG (2012) Danish election study 2007: The Danish National Election Study. Centre for Survey and Survey/Register Data (CSSR). Available at: http://www.valgprojektet.dk/default.asp
5.
AndersonCJ (2000) Economic voting and political context: A comparative perspective. Electoral Studies19(2): 151–170.
6.
AngelovaMKönigTProkschSO (2016) Responsibility attribution in coalition governments: Evidence from Germany. Electoral Studies43(1): 133–149.
7.
BerzJ (2019) Potent executives: The electoral strength of prime ministers in central eastern Europe. East European Politics35(4): 517–537.
8.
BittnerA (2011) Platform or Personality? The Role of Party Leaders in Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
BittnerA (2018) The personalization of parliamentary elections? In: CrossWKatzRSPruysersS (eds) The Personalization of Democratic Politics and the Challenge for Political Parties. Colchester: ECPR Press, pp.39–55.
10.
BlondelJMüller-RommelF (eds) (1993) Governing Together: The Extent and Limits of Joint Decision-Making in Western European Cabinets. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
11.
BorreONielsenHJAndersenJGAndersenJ (2000) Danish election study 1998: The Danish National Election Study. Centre for Survey and Survey/Register Data (CSSR). Available at: http://www.valgprojektet.dk/default.asp
12.
BreenRKarlsonKBHolmA (2013) Total, direct, and indirect effects in logit and probit models. Sociological Methods & Research42(2): 164–191.
13.
CalderBJ (1977) An attribution theory of leadership. In: StawBMSalanickGR (eds) New Directions in Organizational Behavior. Pittsburgh, PA: St. Clair Press, pp.179–204.
14.
CampbellAConversePEMillerWEDonaldE (1966) The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
15.
ClarkeHSandersDStewartMWhiteleyP (2011) Valence politics and electoral choice in Britain, 2010. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties21(2): 237–253.
16.
ClarkeHSandersDStewartMCWhiteleyP (2004) Political Choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
ClarkeHSandersDWhitelyPStewartM (2003) British election study 2001, cross-section. Colchester: UK Data Archive (distributor). Available at: www.britishelectionstudy.com/data
18.
ClarkeHSandersDWhitelyPStewartM (2006) British election study 2005, post election survey. Colchester: UK Data Archive (distributor). Available at: www.britishelectionstudy.com/data
19.
CloggCCPetkovaEHaritouA (1995) Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology100(5): 1261–1293.
20.
ConversePE (1990) Popular representation and the distribution of information. In: FerejohnJKuklinskiJ (eds) Information and Democratic Processes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp.369–387.
21.
CurticeJHunjanS (2011) Elections as beauty contests: Do the rules matter? In: AartsKBlaisASchmittH (eds) Political Leaders and Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.91–107.
22.
CurticeJLisiM (2014) The impact of leaders in parliamentary and presidential regimes. In: LoboMCCurticeJ (eds) Personality Politics? The Role of Leader Evaluations in Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.63–86.
23.
DassonnevilleRLewis-BeckMS (2017) Rules, institutions and the economic vote: Clarifying clarity of responsibility. West European Politics40(3): 534–559.
24.
DebusMStegmaierMTosunJ (2014) Economic voting under coalition governments: Evidence from Germany. Political Science Research and Methods2(1): 49–67.
25.
Delli CarpiniMXKeeterS (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26.
DinasEHartmanEvan SpanjeJ (2016) Dead man walking: The affective roots of issue proximity between voters and parties. Political Behavior38(3): 659–687.
27.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
28.
DuchRStevensonR (2013) Voter perceptions of agenda power and attribution of responsibility for economic performance. Electoral Studies32(3): 512–516.
29.
DuchRPrzepiorkaWStevensonR (2015) Responsibility attribution for collective decision makers. American Journal of Political Science59(2): 372–389.
30.
DuchRMMayJArmstrongDA (2010) Coalition-directed voting in multiparty democracies. American Political Science Review104(4): 698–719.
31.
FairRC (1996) Econometrics and presidential elections. The Journal of Economic Perspectives10(3): 89–102.
FerreiradaSilvaF (2018) Fostering turnout? Assessing party leaders’ capacity to mobilize voters. Electoral Studies56: 61–79.
34.
Ferreira da SilvaFCostaP (2019) Do we need warm leaders? Exploratory study of the role of voter evaluations of leaders’ traits on turnout in seven European countries. European Journal of Political Research58(1): 117–140.
35.
FieldhouseEGreenJEvansGSchmittHvan der EijkCMellonJ, et al. (2016) British election study internet panel waves1-9. Colchester: UK Data Archive (distributor). Available at: www.britishelectionstudy.com/data
36.
FiorinaMP (1981) Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
37.
FormichelliS (2014) Personality politics in single-party and coalition governments. In: LoboMCCurticeJ (eds) Personality Politics? The Role of Leader Evaluations in Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.87–104.
GarziaD (2012) Party and leader effects in parliamentary elections: Towards a reassessment. Politics32(3): 175–185.
41.
GarziaD (2014) Personalization of Politics and Electoral Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
GarziaD (2017a) Personalization of politics between Television and the Internet: Leader effects in the 2013 Italian parliamentary election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics14: 403–416.
43.
GarziaD (2017b) Voter evaluation of candidates and party leaders. In: ArzheimerKEvansJLewis-BeckMS (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Electoral Behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing, pp.633–653.
44.
GreenJJenningsW (2012) The dynamics of issue competence and vote for parties in and out of power: An analysis of valence in Britain, 1979-1997. European Journal of Political Research51(4): 469–503.
45.
HeathAJowellRCurticeJ (1983) British general election study, 1983; cross-section survey. Colchester: UK Data Archive (distributor). Available at: www.britishelectionstudy.com/data
46.
HeathAJowellRCurticeJ (1987) British general election study, 1987; cross-section survey. Colchester: UK Data Archive (distributor). Available at: www.britishelectionstudy.com/data
47.
HeffernanR (2005) Exploring (and explaining) the British prime minister. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations7(4): 605–620.
48.
HuberS (2014) What comes first, character traits or political assessments? An experimental study. In: LoboMCCurticeJ (eds) Personality Politics? The Role of Leader Evaluations in Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.38–60.
JacquartPAntonakisJ (2015) When does charisma matter for top-level leaders? Effect of attributional ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal58(4): 1051–1074.
51.
KavanaghD (2005) The Blair premiership. In: SeldonAKavanaghD (eds) The Blair Effect 2001-5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.3–20.
52.
KeyVO (1966) The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting, 1936–1960. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
53.
KingA (1994) Chief executives in western Europe. In: BudgeIMcKayD (eds) Developing Democracy. London: SAGE Publishing, pp.150–163.
54.
KingA (2002) Do leaders’ personalities really matter? In: KingA (ed.) Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.1–43.
55.
KohlerUKarlsonKBHolmA (2011) Comparing coefficients of nested nonlinear probability models. Stata Journal11(3): 420–438.
Lewis-BeckMSStegmaierM (2013) The VP-function revisited: A survey of the literature on vote and popularity functions after over 40 years. Public Choice157(3–4): 367–385.
58.
LoboMCCurticeJ (2014) Personality Politics? The Role of Leader Evaluations in Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59.
LordRGBinningJFRushMCThomasJC (1978) The effect of performance cues and leader behavior on questionnaire ratings of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance21(1): 27–39.
60.
MillerAHWattenbergMPMalanchukO (1986) Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review80(2): 521–540.
61.
MughanA (2015) Parties, conditionality and leader effects in parliamentary elections. Party Politics21(1): 28–39.
62.
O’MalleyE (2007) The power of prime ministers: Results of an expert survey. International Political Science Review28(1): 7–27.
63.
PlesciaCKritzingerS (2017) Retrospective voting and party support at elections: Credit and blame for government and opposition. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties27(2): 156–171.
64.
PoguntkeTWebbP (2005) The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65.
PolkJRovnyJBakkerR, et al. (2017) Explaining the salience of anti-elitism and reducing political corruption for political parties in Europe with the 2014 Chapel Hill expert survey data. Research & Politics4(1): 686915.
66.
PowellGBJrWhittenGD (1993) A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science21(3): 391–414.
67.
PrzeworskiAStokesSCManinB (1999) Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ShabadGSlomczynskiKM (2011) Voters’ perceptions of government performance and attributions of responsibility: Electoral control in Poland. Electoral Studies30(2): 309–320.
72.
StiersD (2019) Beyond the distinction between incumbency and opposition: Retrospective voting at the level of political parties. Party Politics25(6): 805–816.
73.
StubagerRSeebergHBSoF (2018) One size doesn’t fit all: Voter decision criteria heterogeneity and vote choice. Electoral Studies52: 1–10.
74.
WattenbergMP (1991) The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics: Presidential Elections of the 1980s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
75.
WilliamsLKStegmaierMDebusM (2017) Relaxing the constant economic vote restriction: Economic evaluations and party support in Germany. Party Politics23(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.
