Cargando…
The impact of corona populism: Empirical evidence from Austria and theory
I study the co-evolution between public opinion and party policy in situations of crises by investigating a policy U-turn of a major Austrian right-wing party (FPÖ) during the Covid-19 pandemic. My analysis suggests the existence of both i) a “Downsian” effect, which causes voters to adapt their par...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10017277/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36941842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.02.021 |
_version_ | 1784907545182208000 |
---|---|
author | Mellacher, Patrick |
author_facet | Mellacher, Patrick |
author_sort | Mellacher, Patrick |
collection | PubMed |
description | I study the co-evolution between public opinion and party policy in situations of crises by investigating a policy U-turn of a major Austrian right-wing party (FPÖ) during the Covid-19 pandemic. My analysis suggests the existence of both i) a “Downsian” effect, which causes voters to adapt their party preferences based on policy congruence and ii) a “party identification” effect, which causes partisans to realign their policy preferences based on “their” party's platform. Specifically, I use individual-level panel data to show that i) “corona skeptical” voters who did not vote for the FPÖ in the pre-Covid-19 elections of 2019 were more likely to vote for the party after it embraced “corona populism”, and ii) beliefs of respondents who declared that they voted for the FPÖ in 2019 diverged from the rest of the population in three out of four health-related dimensions only after the turn, causing them to underestimate the threat posed by Covid-19 compared to the rest of the population. Using aggregate-level panel data, I study whether the turn has produced significant behavioral differences which could be observed in terms of reported cases and deaths per capita. Paradoxically, after the turn the FPÖ vote share is significantly positively correlated with deaths per capita, but not with the reported number of infections. I hypothesize that this can be traced back to a self-selection bias in testing, which causes a correlation between the number of “corona skeptics” and the share of unreported cases after the turn. I find empirical support for this hypothesis in individual-level data from a Covid-19 prevalence study that involves information about participants’ true vs. reported infection status. I finally study a simple heterogeneous mixing epidemiological model and show that a testing bias can indeed explain the apparent paradox of an increase in deaths without an increase in reported cases. My results can, among others, be used to enrich formal analyses regarding the co-evolution between voter and party behavior. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10017277 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100172772023-03-16 The impact of corona populism: Empirical evidence from Austria and theory Mellacher, Patrick J Econ Behav Organ Article I study the co-evolution between public opinion and party policy in situations of crises by investigating a policy U-turn of a major Austrian right-wing party (FPÖ) during the Covid-19 pandemic. My analysis suggests the existence of both i) a “Downsian” effect, which causes voters to adapt their party preferences based on policy congruence and ii) a “party identification” effect, which causes partisans to realign their policy preferences based on “their” party's platform. Specifically, I use individual-level panel data to show that i) “corona skeptical” voters who did not vote for the FPÖ in the pre-Covid-19 elections of 2019 were more likely to vote for the party after it embraced “corona populism”, and ii) beliefs of respondents who declared that they voted for the FPÖ in 2019 diverged from the rest of the population in three out of four health-related dimensions only after the turn, causing them to underestimate the threat posed by Covid-19 compared to the rest of the population. Using aggregate-level panel data, I study whether the turn has produced significant behavioral differences which could be observed in terms of reported cases and deaths per capita. Paradoxically, after the turn the FPÖ vote share is significantly positively correlated with deaths per capita, but not with the reported number of infections. I hypothesize that this can be traced back to a self-selection bias in testing, which causes a correlation between the number of “corona skeptics” and the share of unreported cases after the turn. I find empirical support for this hypothesis in individual-level data from a Covid-19 prevalence study that involves information about participants’ true vs. reported infection status. I finally study a simple heterogeneous mixing epidemiological model and show that a testing bias can indeed explain the apparent paradox of an increase in deaths without an increase in reported cases. My results can, among others, be used to enrich formal analyses regarding the co-evolution between voter and party behavior. The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. 2023-05 2023-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC10017277/ /pubmed/36941842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.02.021 Text en © 2023 The Author(s) Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Article Mellacher, Patrick The impact of corona populism: Empirical evidence from Austria and theory |
title | The impact of corona populism: Empirical evidence from Austria and theory |
title_full | The impact of corona populism: Empirical evidence from Austria and theory |
title_fullStr | The impact of corona populism: Empirical evidence from Austria and theory |
title_full_unstemmed | The impact of corona populism: Empirical evidence from Austria and theory |
title_short | The impact of corona populism: Empirical evidence from Austria and theory |
title_sort | impact of corona populism: empirical evidence from austria and theory |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10017277/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36941842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.02.021 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mellacherpatrick theimpactofcoronapopulismempiricalevidencefromaustriaandtheory AT mellacherpatrick impactofcoronapopulismempiricalevidencefromaustriaandtheory |