SOCIOECONOMIC POLICY EVALUATION: PARTISANSHIP AND PARTISAN BIAS EFFECT
Public support of socioeconomic reforms is one of the most important factors for their successful implementation, and conversely, lack of public approval doesn’t allow achieving the expected effect and may result in negative externalities. In this regard, it is relevant to study the origins of people’s opinions and factors affecting their evaluation of social and economic policies. This paper is devoted to the following aspects of this multidimensional problem as partisanship and partisan bias. Their research has been actively promoted by foreign scientists, but so far presented extremely limited in Ukrainian literature. In this paper the critical review of foreign scientific papers devoted to this topic is presented; the main hypotheses about the influence of party identification on public opinion and the effect of partisan bias are highlighted; features of the methodology are noted and research results are summarized. The methodology used by foreign specialists for research of this problem is based on experimental methods, among them the main place belongs to laboratory experiments. A laboratory experiment means observing people’s behavior (participants’ behavior) under strictly controlled conditions when the influence of uncontrolled factors is limited to a minimum. In foreign studies of partisan bias and its influence on citizens' evaluation of socioeconomic policies, laboratory experiments serve as the main tool for testing hypotheses. The results of the research give evidence, on the one hand, that the partisan bias mechanism provides wide possibilities to manipulate the people’s opinion and public opinion in general, on the other hand, that correct objective information about the policy content and goals can significantly weaken the partisan bias effect. Foreign studies prove that party signal influence depends on the people’s properties, policy content, political systems, and party characteristics. In Ukraine, there is a lack its own research in this field, however, as democratic institutions, civil society, and people’s political consciousness and activity develop, these studies become more relevant to the political and economic life in Ukrainian society.
Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Johnston, R. (2006). Party identification: Unmoved mover or sum of preferences? Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 329-351. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.062404.170523
Petersen, M. B., Giessing, A., & Nielsen, J. (2015). Physiological responses and partisan bias: beyond self-reported measures of party identification. PloS one, 10(5), e0126922. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126922
Tsyganenko, G. (2004). Party identification and electoral behavior. Party identification and electoral behavior. Social Psychology, 2(4), 61-70. (in Ukrainian)
Agalarova, K. A. (2014). Political-ideological identification as a scientific concept and social phenomenon. Bulletin of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, 1122, 29-32. (in Ukrainian)
Shachkovska, L. S. (2017). Party identification as one of the factors in structuring the political orientation of citizens. The influence of social sciences on the process of social development: possible and real: Materials of the international scientific and practical conference (Kyiv, Ukraine, March 3-4, 2017). Kyiv: NGO "Kyiv Scientific Social Science Organization", 97-102. (in Ukrainian)
Rotar, N. (2014). Party self-identification of the Chernivtsi community in the parliamentary elections of 2002–2014. Scientific notes of the Institute of Political and Ethnonational Studies named after I.F. Kuras of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 3(77), 90-120. (in Ukrainian)
Loktionova, D. (2009). Party identification of citizens of Ukraine during the parliamentary elections of 1998, 2002, 2006 and 2007. Modern Ukrainian politics. Politicians and political scientists about her, 15, 200-208. (in Ukrainian)
Bodnarov, O. G. (2012). Political behavior in organized and spontaneous forms. Proceedings, 12(І), 283-287. (in Ukrainian)
Bullock, J. G. (2020). Party Cues. Elizabeth Suhay (ed.) et al., The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion (Р. 129-150). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.2
Lavine, H., Johnston, C., & Steenbergen, M. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199772759.001.0001
Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., Crosier, T. R., & Duck, J. M. (2005). The Importance of the Relevance of the Issue to the Group in Voting Intentions: The Case of the Australian Republic Referendum. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(2), 163-170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2702_7
Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52-66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00541.x
Brader, T., Tucker, J. A., & Duell, D. (2013). Which parties can lead opinion? experimental evidence on partisan cue taking in multiparty democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 46(11), 1485-1517. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012453452
Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235-262. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of Reason (Р. 183-213). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Taber, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
Casado-Aranda, L. A., de la Higuera-Molina, E. J., Sánchez-Fernández, J. et al. (2022). Neural bases of sector bias in perceptions of public versus private-sector service performance. Polit Behav. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09803-4
Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. The American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57-79. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000500
Druckman, J. N., & Bolsen, T. (2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 659-688. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x
Jerit, J. (2009). How predictive appeals shape policy opinions. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 411-426. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1540-5907.2009.00378.X
Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The Dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808-822. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.118
Bullock, J. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496-515. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000165
Kam, C. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27(2), 163-182. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-005-1764-y
Coan, T., Merolla, J., Stephenson, L., & Zechmeister, E. (2008). It’s not easy being green: Minor party labels as heuristic aids. Political Psychology, 29(3), 389-405. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00636.x
Guntermann, E. (2019). Party influence where predispositions are strong and party identification is weak: Assessing citizens’ reactions to party cues on regional nationalism in Spain. Party Politics, 25, 609-620. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068817736756
Merolla, J. L., Stephenson, L. B., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2008). Can Canadians take a hint? The (In) Effectiveness of party labels as information shortcuts in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 41(3), 673-696. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423908080797
Converse, P. (1969). Of time and partisan stability. Comparative Politics, 2, 139-171. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/001041406900200201
Tappin, B., & Hewitt, L. (2021). Estimating the persistence of party cue influence in a panel survey experiment. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2021.22
Weeks, B. E., Lane, D. S., & Hahn, L. B. (2022). Online incidental exposure to news can minimize interest-based political knowledge gaps: evidence from two U.S. elections. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(1), 243-262. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161221991550
Coppock, A., Ekins, E. E., & Kirby, D. (2018). The long-lasting effects of newspaper op-eds on public opinion. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 13, 59-87. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/100.00016112
Kuziemko, I., Norton, M. I., Saez, E., & Stantcheva, S. (2015). How elastic are preferences for redistribution? Evidence from randomized survey experiments. The American Economic Review, 105(4), 1478-1508. doi: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130360
Ozer, A. L., & right, J. M. (2022). Partisan news versus party cues: The effect of cross-cutting party and partisan network cues on polarization and persuasion. Research & Politics, 9(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680221075455
Rahn, W. M. (1993). The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472-496. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2111381
Germa, B., Merkulova, T., Joan-Ramon, B., & Martynenko, M. (2023). Socio-economic aspects of healthcare policy in the context of partisan bias effect. Proceedings of the VIII International Scientific and Practical Conference. Madrid, Spain, 16-20.
Geana, M. V., Rabb, N., & Sloman, S. (2021). Walking the party line: The growing role of political ideology in shaping health behavior in the United States. Population Health, 16, 100950. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100950
Gadarian, S. K, Goodman, S. W, & Pepinsky, T. B. (2021). Partisanship, health behavior, and policy attitudes in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE, 16(4). doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249596
Kagel, J. H., & Roth, A. E. (Eds.). (1995). The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press.
Smith, V. (1994). Economics in the Laboratory. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 113-131. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.1.113
Jacquemet, N., & L'Haridon, O. (2018). Experimental Economics: Method and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107446786
Douglas, D. D., & Holt, C. A. (1993). Experimental Economics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Glimcher, P. W., Camerer, C. F., Fehr, E., & Poldrack, R. A. (2009). Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain. London: Elsevier Academic Press.
Bel, G., & Esteve, M. (2020). Is private production of hospital services cheaper than public production? A meta-regression of public versus private costs and efficiency for hospitals. International Public Management Journal, 23(1), 1-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1622613