ScholarGate
Asisten
MCDMRetrospective / accountability voting theory

Economic Voting Analysis

Economic voting analysis is the formal study of how voters reward or punish incumbents according to economic performance. In the reward-punishment (retrospective) model pioneered by Gerald Kramer in 1971, support for the governing party is a function of recent economic outcomes — growth, unemployment, and inflation — so that good times re-elect incumbents and bad times turn them out. Michael Lewis-Beck and Mary Stegmaier's 2000 review consolidated the field, establishing that economic voting is predominantly sociotropic (based on the national economy rather than personal finances) and that its strength depends on the clarity of responsibility: how easily voters can attribute outcomes to the incumbent.

Buka di MethodMindSegeraTerapkan, bandingkan, dapatkan panduan
Alat & sumber daya
Unduh salindia
Belajar & jelajahi
VideoSegera

Baca metode selengkapnya

Khusus anggota

Masuk dengan akun gratis untuk membaca bagian ini.

Masuk

Peta metode

Lingkup metode terkait — pilih sebuah simpul untuk menjelajah.

Sumber

  1. Kramer, G. H. (1971). Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896-1964. American Political Science Review, 65(1), 131-143. DOI: 10.2307/1955049
  2. Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Stegmaier, M. (2000). Economic Determinants of Electoral Outcomes. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 183-219. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.183

Cara menyitasi halaman ini

ScholarGate. (2026, June 22). Economic Voting Model (Retrospective and Reward-Punishment). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/id/political-economy/economic-voting-analysis

Metode yang mana?

Letakkan metode ini berdampingan dengan kerabat terdekatnya dan baca secara bersisian — pustaka menata bukunya di atas meja; pilihan ada di tangan Anda.

Bandingkan berdampingan

Dirujuk oleh

ScholarGateEconomic Voting Analysis (Economic Voting Model (Retrospective and Reward-Punishment)). Diakses 2026-06-25 dari https://scholargate.app/id/political-economy/economic-voting-analysis · Set data: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026