Political Behavior

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 1099–1115 | Cite as

Foreclosure’s Fallout: Economic Adversity and Voter Turnout

  • Paru ShahEmail author
  • Amber Wichowsky
Original Paper


With the foreclosure crisis continuing to impact individuals and communities across the country, understanding the extent of its effect on political life is tantamount. In this paper, we ask how political behaviors are influenced by the economic adversities created by this crisis: loss of home, loss of resources, and perhaps loss of political efficacy. Previous research on economic adversity focuses almost exclusively on unemployment. Here we explore the demobilizing effects of foreclosures at the individual level, community levels, and the intersection of individuals nested in communities. With a unique dataset that matches voter file data to a database on individual foreclosures, we show that the foreclosure crisis was associated with a decline in voter turnout, both individually and for those in neighborhoods hit harder by the foreclosure crisis. We find that homeowners facing the loss of their homes were less likely to go to the polls. Consistent with previous research, we also show that turnout was suppressed in neighborhoods with higher rates of foreclosure. Taken together, our results suggest that political elites were less likely to hear from constituents most directly impacted by the foreclosure crisis.


Foreclosures Voter turnout Political inequality 

Supplementary material

11109_2018_9509_MOESM1_ESM.docx (32 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 33 kb)


  1. Abramovitz, M., & Albrecht, J. (2013). The community loss index: A new social indicator. Social Service Review,87(4), 677–724.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, R. (2011). The relationship between residential foreclosures, race, ethnicity, and nativity status. Journal of Planning Education and Research.,31(2), 125–142.Google Scholar
  3. Ansolabehere, S., Marc, M., & Erik, S. (2014). Mecro-economic voting: Local information and micro-perceptions of the macro-economy. Economics & Politics,26(3), 380–410.Google Scholar
  4. Arceneaux, K., & Nickerson, D. W. (2009). Who is mobilized to vote? A re-analysis of 11 field experiments. American Journal of Political Science,53(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  5. Baumer, E., Wolff, K., & Arnio, A. (2012). A multicity neighborhood analysis of foreclosure and crime. Social Science Quarterly,93(3), 577–601.Google Scholar
  6. Baybeck, B., & McClurg, S. D. (2005). What do they know and how do they know it? An examination of citizen awareness of context. American Politics Research,33(4), 492–520.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,644(1), 20–39.Google Scholar
  8. Bocian, D. G., Ernst, K. S., & Li, W. (2008). Race, ethnicity and subprime home loan pricing. Journal of Economics and Business,60(1), 110–124.Google Scholar
  9. Bocian, D. G., Li, W., & Ernst, K. S. (2010). Foreclosures by race and ethnicity. Center for Responsible Lending.
  10. Brody, R. A., & Sniderman, P. M. (1977). From life space to polling place: The relevance of personal concerns for voting behavior. British Journal of Political Science,7(3), 337–360.Google Scholar
  11. Burden, B. C., & Wichowsky, A. (2014). Economic discontent as a mobilizer: unemployment and voter turnout. The Journal of Politics,76(4), 887–898.Google Scholar
  12. City of Milwaukee. (2009). Milwaukee foreclosure partnership initiative: Report of final recommendations building stronger neighborhoods. Milwaukee: Author.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, C. J., & Dawson, M. C. (1993). Neighborhood poverty and African American politics. American Political Science Review,87(2), 286–302.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, R., & Bruenig, M. (2017). Foreclosed: Destruction of black wealth during the Obama presidency. People’s Policy Project. Last accessed August 21, 2018, from
  15. Davenport, T. C., Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., Larimer, C. W., Mann, C. B., & Panagopoulos, C. (2010). The enduring effects of social pressure: Tracking campaign experiments over a series of elections. Political Behavior,32(3), 423–430.Google Scholar
  16. Dayen, D. (2015). A needless default. The American Prospect. Last accessed August 21, 2018, from
  17. Desmond, M. (2016). Evicted: Poverty and profit in the American city. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
  18. Ellen, I. G., Lacoe, J., & Sharygin, C. A. (2013). Do foreclosures cause crime? Journal of Urban Economics,74, 59–70.Google Scholar
  19. Estrada-Correa, V., & Johnson, M. (2012). Foreclosure depresses voter turnout: Neighborhood disruption and the 2008 Presidential Election in California. Social Science Quarterly,93(3), 559–576.Google Scholar
  20. Firebaugh, G., & Farrell, C. (2016). Still large, but narrowing: The sizable decline in racial neighborhood inequality in metropolitan America, 1980–2010. Demography,53(1), 139–164.Google Scholar
  21. Gerardi, K., et al. (2012). Foreclosure externalities: Some new evidence. Working Paper 18353. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  22. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review,94(3), 653–663.Google Scholar
  23. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Green, M. (2003). Partisan mail and voter turnout: Results from randomized field experiments. Electoral Studies,22(4), 563–579.Google Scholar
  24. Graves, E. (2012). What do the neighbors think? Assessing the community impact of neighborhood stabilization efforts. New England Community Developments,1, 1–8.Google Scholar
  25. Green, D. P., Gerber, A. S., & Nickerson, D. W. (2003). Getting out the vote in local elections: Results from six door-to-door canvassing experiments. Journal of Politics,65(4), 1083–1096.Google Scholar
  26. Harding, J. P., Rosenblatt, E., & Yao, V. W. (2009). The contagion effect of foreclosed properties. Journal of Urban Economics,66(3), 164–178.Google Scholar
  27. Huckfeldt, R. R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Iacus, S. M., Gary, K., & Giuseppe, P. (2008). Matching for causal inference without balance checking.
  29. Ihlanfeldt, K., & Mayock, T. (2014). The variance in foreclosure spillovers across neighborhood types. Public Finance Review. Scholar
  30. Immergluck, D., & Smith, G. (2006a). The external costs of foreclosure: The impact of single-family mortgage foreclosures on property values. Housing Policy Debate,17(1), 57–79.Google Scholar
  31. Immergluck, D., & Smith, G. (2006b). The impact of single-family mortgage foreclosures on neighborhood crime. Housing Studies,21(6), 851–866.Google Scholar
  32. Incantalupo, M. B. (2011). Estimating the effects of unemployment on voter turnout. Poster presented at the Summer Methods Meeting, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  33. Issenberg, S. (2012, August 30). The case of the disappearing black voter. Accessed June 28, 2013, from
  34. Kang, N., & Kwak, N. (2003). A multilevel approach to civic participation individual length of residence, neighborhood residential stability, and their interactive effects with media use. Communication Research,30(1), 80–106.Google Scholar
  35. Katz, C. M., Wallace, D., & Hedberg, E. C. (2013). A longitudinal assessment of the impact of foreclosure on neighborhood crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,50(3), 359–389.Google Scholar
  36. King, G., & Zeng, L. (2006). The dangers of extreme counterfactuals. Political Analysis,14(2), 131–159.Google Scholar
  37. Kingsley, G. T., Smith, R. E., & Price, D. (2009). The impacts of foreclosures on families and communities. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
  38. Levin, I., Andrew Sinclair, J., & Michael Alvarez, R. (2016). Participation in the wake of adversity: Blame attribution and policy-oriented evaluations. Political Behavior,38, 203–228.Google Scholar
  39. Li, Y. (2011). Geography of opportunity and residential mortgage foreclosure: A spatial analysis of a US Housing Market. Journal of Urban & Regional Analysis,3(2), 195–214.Google Scholar
  40. Li, Y., & Morrow-Jones, H. A. (2010). The impact of residential mortgage foreclosure on neighborhood change and succession. Journal of Planning Education and Research,30(1), 22–39.Google Scholar
  41. McKernan, S.-M., Ratcliffe, C., Steuerle, E., & Zhang, S. (2014). Impact of the great recession and beyond: Disparities in wealth building by generation and race. Working Paper. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  42. Michener, J. (2013). Neighborhood disorder and local participation: Examining the political relevance of ‘broken windows’. Political Behavior,35(4), 777–806.Google Scholar
  43. Newman, B. J., Hartman, T. K., & Taber, C. S. (2014). Social dominance and the cultural politics of immigration. Political Psychology,35(2), 165–186.Google Scholar
  44. Nickerson, D. W. (2008). Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. American political Science review,102(1), 49–57.Google Scholar
  45. Niedt, C., & Martin, I. W. (2013). Who are the foreclosed? A statistical portrait of America in crisis. Housing Policy Debate,23(1), 159–176.Google Scholar
  46. Packer, G. (2018). “Ten Years After the Crash.” The New Yorker, August 27, 2018.Google Scholar
  47. Pew Research Center. (2016). America’s shrinking middle class: A close look at changes within metropolitan areas. Last accessed August 10, 2018, from
  48. Pfeffer, F. T., Danziger, S., & Schoeni, R. F. (2013). Wealth disparities before and after the great recession. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,650, 98–123.Google Scholar
  49. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. New York: SAGE.Google Scholar
  50. Reeves, A., & Gimpel, J. G. (2012). Ecologies of unease: Geographic context and national economic evaluations. Political Behavior,34(3), 507–534.Google Scholar
  51. Rogers, W. H., & Winter, W. (2009). The impact of foreclosures on neighboring housing sales. Journal of Real Estate Research,31(4), 455–479.Google Scholar
  52. Rosenstone, S. (1982). Economic adversity and voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science,62, 25–42.Google Scholar
  53. Rosenstone, S., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  54. Rotolo, T., & Wilson, J. (2003). Work histories and voluntary association memberships. Sociological Forum,18(4), 603–619.Google Scholar
  55. Saegert, S., Fields, D., & Libman, K. (2011). Mortgage foreclosure and health disparities: Serial displacement as asset extraction in African American Populations. Journal of Urban Health,88(3), 390–402.Google Scholar
  56. Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2016). Wealth inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from capitalized income tax data. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,131(2), 519–578.Google Scholar
  57. Sampson, R. J. (2004). Neighborhood and community. New Economy,11(2), 106–113.Google Scholar
  58. Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American journal of sociology,105(3), 603–651.Google Scholar
  59. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science,277(5328), 918–924.Google Scholar
  60. Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2012). The unheavenly chorus: Unequal political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Semuels, A. (2017, December 1). The never-ending foreclosure: How can the country survive the next crash if millions of families still haven’t recovered from the last one? The Atlantic Monthly. Last accessed August 22, 2018, from
  62. Sharkey, P. (2013). Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sinclair, B. (2012). The social citizen: Peer networks and political behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. SoRelle, M. (2016). Democracy declined: The failed politics of consumer credit. PhD Dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  65. Soss, J., & Weaver, V. (2017). Police are our government: Politics, political science, and the policing of race–class subjugated communities. Annual Review of Political Science,20, 565–591.Google Scholar
  66. Steenbergen, M. R., & Jones, B. S. (2002). Modeling multilevel data structures. American Journal of Political Science,46(1), 218–237.Google Scholar
  67. Taylor, P., & Lopez, M. H. (2013, May 8). Six take-aways from the Census Bureau’s voting report. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  68. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Vidmar, C. (2008). Seven ways foreclosures impact communities. Report. Neighborhood Works America, Washington, DC.
  70. Weatherford, M. S. (1983). Economic voting and the “symbolic politics” argument: A reinterpretation and synthesis. American Political Science Review,77(1), 158–174.Google Scholar
  71. Wilson, W. J. (2000). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York, NY: Vintage.Google Scholar
  72. Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Wong, C. J. (2007). “Little” and “big” pictures in our heads: Race, local context, and innumeracy about racial groups in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly,71(3), 392–412.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political Science, University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Political Science, Marquette UniversityMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations