The Effect of Economic Voting Theory on Voter Preference within in the Scope of Political Marketing

Year 2021, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 55 - 64, 17.08.2021

Barış Armutcu , Ahmet Tan

Abstract

Determination of voter behavior in the scope of political marketing is the most important factor in terms of political powers and parties at present. Voters are influenced by a lot of factors among which economic factors are the most important ones. The view that economical factors affect voter preference is known as the economical voting theory in the literature. In this context, voters assess the past economic performances of political parties and their possible future economical performances and reflect their preferences accordingly. In the scope of this theory, voters reward existing political parties with their votes at the ballot box due to positive economical developments while punishing them for negative economical developments. The aim of this study is to reveal the importance of voter preferences within the scope of political marketing and determine the economical factors that influence voter preferences in Turkey. In this context, the effect of economical variables on vote rates was investigated through the econometric model. Within the scope of the analysis, data between 1990 and 2019 from Turkey were used. First, the stationarity levels of the variables used in the study were determined by Extended Dickey-Fuller and Philips-Peron unit root tests. Second, the short-term and long-term relationships between the variables were tested with the autoregressive distributed lag bounds test. Finally, the Todo-Yamamoto causality test was used to determine the causality relationship between the variables used in the study. As a result of the study, it was concluded that the effect of the rate of gross domestic product per capita on the vote in the short and long term is positive but statistically insignificant. In addition, another important finding of the study is that the effect of the inflation rate on the vote is negative and statistically significant in both the short and long term. Finally, as a result of the causality test, it was determined that there is a one-way causality relationship from inflation to vote rate.

Keywords

Politicical Marketing, Economic Voting, Voter Behavior, Turkey

References

• ADAMAN, Fikret, Ali, ÇARKOĞLU ve ŞENATALAR, Burhan (2001), “Hane Halkı Gözünden Türkiye'de Yolsuzluğun Nedenleri ve Önlenmesine İlişkin Öneriler”, TESEV Yayınları, No:24, İstanbul.
• AKGÜN, Birol (1999), “Türkiye’de Seçmen Davranışının Ekonomi Politik’i Üzerine Bir Model Denemesi”, Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, V. 4(14), pp.62-74.
• AKARCA, Ali T. ve TANSEL, Aysit (2006), “Economic Performance and Political Outcomes: An Analysis of the Turkish Parliamentary and Local Election Results Between 1950 And 2004”, Public Choice, V. 129(1-2), pp. 7-105.
• BAŞLEVENT, Cem and KİRMANOĞLU, Hasan (2016), “Economic voting in Turkey: perceptions, expectations, and the party choice”, Research and Policy on Turkey, V. 1(1), pp. 88-101.
• ÇARKOĞLU, Ali (1997), “Macro Economic Determinants of Electoral Support for Incumbents in Turkey, 1950–1995”, New Perspectives on Turkey, V. 17, pp. 75-96.
• ÇINAR, Ali (2010), “Ekonominin seçmen ideolojisi üzerine etkisi: Türkiye örneği”, Doktora tezi, DEÜ Sosyal Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Çİ̇NKO, Levent (2006), “Seçmen Davranışları İle Ekonomik Performans Arasındaki İlişkilerin Teorik Temelleri Ve Türkiye Üzerine Genel Bir Değerlendirme”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, V. 61 (01), pp. 103-116. doi: 10.1501/SBFder_0000001390.
• DE NEVE, Jan-Emmanuel (2009), “Ideological Change and the Economics Voting Behavior in the 1920-2008”, Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association and LSE Political Science and Political Economy Seminar.
• DESTEK, M. Akif (2018), “Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezinin Türkiye İçin İncelenmesi: STIRPAT Modelinden Bulgular”, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, V. 19(2), pp. 268-283.
• DİCKEY, David, A. ve FULLER, Wayne, A. (1981), “Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Econometrica, V. 49, pp.1057-1072.
• DURR, Robert H. (1993), “What Moves Policy Sentiment?”, The American Political Science Review. V.87(1), pp.158-170.
• ERCİNS, Gülay (2007), “Türkiye’de Sosyo-Ekonomik Faktörlere Bağlı Olarak Değişen Seçmen Davranışı”, CÜ İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, V.8(2), pp. 25-40.
• ERDOĞAN, Seyfettin (2004), “Siyaset-Ekonomi İlişkileri”, Değişim Yayınevi, İstanbul.
• EROĞLU, Melek H. (2019), “Economic voting and relative importance of domestic and international reference points”, Doctoral Thesis.
• GOMEZ, Brad, T. and WİLSON, J. Matthew (2001), “Political sophistication and economic voting in the American electorate: A theory of heterogeneous attribution”, American Journal of Political Science, pp. 899-914.
• FAİR, Ray, C. (1978) “The effect of economic events on votes for president”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, pp. 159-173.
• HİBBS, Douglas A. (1977), “Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy”, American Political Science Review, V. 71(04), pp. 1467-1487.
• KAPUSIZOĞLU, Mehmet (2011), “Ekonomik Kriz, 2002 Seçimleri ve Seçmen Tercihi”, Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, V. 3(2), pp. 121-131.
• KİWİT D. Roderick and RİVERS, Douglas (1985), “A Retrospective-on-Retrospective Voting In Economic Conditions and Electoral Outcomes: The United States and Western Europe”, New York: Chap.11.
• KRAMER, Gerald, H. (1971), “Short-term fluctuations in U.S. voting behavior, 1896–1964”, American Political Science Review, V. 65, pp. 131–143.
• MUELLER, John, E. (1970), “Presidential Popularity from Truman to Johnson”, American Political Science Review, V. 64, pp. 18-34.
• ÖZAYDIN, Arif, OĞUZ, İbrahim, H. and TEKBAŞ, Murat (2018), “Türkiye’de Politik İstikrarın Ekonomik Sürdürülebilirlik Üzerine Etkisinin İncelenmesi”, 1st International Economics And Business Symposium: Sustainable Development In All Dimensions.
• PESARAN, M. Hashem and SHİN, Yongcheol (1997), “An autoregressive distributed-lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis”, Econometric Society Monographs, V. 31, pp. 371- 413.
• PESARAN, M. Hashem, SHİN, Yongcheol and SMİTH, Richard J. (2001), “Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationships”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16, ss.289-326.
• PHİLLİPS, Peter, CB. and PERRON, Pierre (1988), “Testing for Unit Roots in Time Series Regression”, Biometrika, 75, ss.335-346.
• POWELL, G. Bingham and WHİTTEN, GUY, D. (1993), “A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context”, American Journal of Political Science, 37/2, ss. 391-414.
• SENCER, Muzaffer (1974), “Türkiye'de Sınıfsal Yapı ve Seçmen Davranışları”, May Yayınları, İstanbul.
• TAN, Ahmet (1998), “Politik Pazarlama ve Kahramanmaraş Örneği”, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, Sivas.
• TODA, Hiro, Y. and YAMAMOTO, Taku (1995), “Statistical Inference in Vector Autoregressions with Possibly Integrated Processes”, Journal of Econometrics, 66, pp. 225-250.
• TUNCEL, Gökhan (2010), “Ekonomik Krizlerin Türkiye’de Siyaset- Bürokrasi İlişkisine Etkisi”, Turgut Özal Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Siyaset Kongresi I Malatya: İnönü Üniversitesi, pp.765- 788.
• VERSTYUK, Sergiy (2004), “Partisan Differences in Economic Outcomes and Corresponding Yoting Behavior: Evidence from the U.S.”, Public Choice, V. 120, pp. 169-89.