Advertisement

Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 63–112 | Cite as

Intensity valence

  • Fabian GouretEmail author
  • Stéphane Rossignol
Original Paper
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

We study a continuous one-dimensional spatial model of electoral competition with two office-motivated candidates differentiated by their “intensity valence”, the degree to which they will implement their announced policy. The model generates results that differ significantly from those obtained in models with additive valence. First, the low intensity valence candidate is supported by voters with ideal points on both extremes of the policy space. Second, there exist pure strategy Nash equilibria (PSNE) in which the high intensity valence candidate wins if the distribution of voters in the policy space is sufficiently homogeneous. If, instead, this distribution is sufficiently heterogeneous, there are PSNE in which the low intensity valence candidate wins. For moderate heterogeneity, only mixed strategy equilibria exist.

JEL Classification

D72 

Notes

Supplementary material

References

  1. Ansolabehere S, Snyder J (2000) Valence politics and equilibrium in spatial election models. Public Choice 103:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aragones E, Palfrey TR (2002) Mixed equilibrium in a Downsian model with a favored candidate. J Econ Theory 103:131–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aragonès E, Xefteris D (2012) Candidate quality in a Downsian model with a continuous policy space. Games Econ Behav 75:464–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aragonès E, Xefteris D (2017) Imperfectly informed voters and strategic extremism. Int Econ Rev 58:439–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashworth S, de Mesquita EB (2009) Elections with platform and valence competition. Games Econ Behav 67:191–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernhardt D, Câmara O, Squintani F (2011) Competence and ideology. Rev Econ Stud 78:487–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrillo JD, Castanheira M (2008) Information and strategic political polarization. Econ J 118:845–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dix M, Santore R (2002) Candidate ability and platform choice. Econ Lett 76:189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Downs A (1957) An economic theory of democracy. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Duggan J (2000) Repeated elections with asymmetric information. Econ Politics 12:109–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evrenk H (2019) Valence politics, ch.13. In: Congleton RD, Grofman BN, Voigt S (eds) The Oxford handbook of public choice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 266–291Google Scholar
  12. Gans JS, Smart M (1996) Majority voting with single-crossing preferences. J Public Econ 59:219–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerber ER, Lewis JB (2004) Beyond the median: Voter preferences, district heterogeneity, and political representation. J Political Econ 112:1364–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gouret F, Hollard G, Rossignol S (2011) An empirical analysis of valence in electoral competition. Soc Choice Welf 37:309–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Groseclose T (2001) A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. Am J Political Sci 45:862–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hare C, Armstrong DA II, Baker R, Carroll R, Poole KT (2015) Using Bayesian Aldrich–McKelvey scaling to study citizens’ ideological preferences and perceptions. Am J Political Sci 59:759–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herrera H, Levine DK, Martinelli C (2008) Policy platforms, campaign spending and voter participation. J Public Econ 92:501–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hummel P (2010) On the nature of equilibria in a Downsian model with candidate valence. Games Econ Behav 70:425–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kartik N, Preston McAfee R (2007) Signaling character in electoral competition. Am Econ Rev 97:852–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krasa S, Polborn MK (2010) Competition between specialized candidates. Am Political Sci Rev 104:745–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krasa S, Polborn MK (2012) Political competition between differentiated candidates. Games Econ Behav 76:249–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mattozzi A, Merlo A (2015) Mediocracy. J Public Econ 130:32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meirowitz A (2008) Electoral contests, incumbency advantages, and campaign finance. J Politics 70:680–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Merrill III S, Grofman B (1999) A unified theory of voting: directional and proximity spatial models. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller MK (2011) Seizing the mantle of change: modeling candidate quality as effectiveness instead of valence. J Theor Politics 23:52–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Soubeyran R (2009) Does a disadvantaged candidate choose an extremist position? Ann Econ Stat 93–94:328–348Google Scholar
  27. Stokes DE (1963) Spatial models of party competition. Am Political Sci Rev 57:368–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Xefteris D (2012) Mixed strategy equilibrium in a Downsian model with a favored candidate: a comment. J Econ Theory 147:393–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Théma UMR8184Université de Cergy-PontoiseCergy-Pontoise CedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Economie Dionysien EA3391Université Paris 8Saint-Denis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations