The Usefulness of Subjective Well-Being to Predict Electoral Results in Latin America

  • Iván Martínez BravoEmail author
Part of the International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life book series (IHQL)


The vote for the incumbent or the opposition has been explained for some decades by economic performance. It is proposed here that Subjective Well-being (SWB) is a better predictor of the vote for the incumbent or the opposition than economic performance. The evidence shows that the higher the SWB of the citizens of a country, the greater the chance that the official party will win the next presidential election, and that SWB data have a greater impact on the vote for the incumbent or the opposition than the GDP per capita growth rate. This study was conducted for Latin America.


Subjective well-being Life satisfaction Economic vote Prediction of election results Latin America Incumbent 


  1. Bok, D. (2010). The politics of happiness: What government can learn from the new research on well-being. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Chappell, H., & Keech, W. (1988). The unemployment rate consequences of partisan monetary policies. Southern Economic Journal, 55, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diener, E., Suh, M., Lucas, R., & Smith, L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diener, E., Inglehart, R., & Tay, L. (2012). Theory and validity of life-satisfaction scales. Social Indicators Research. doi: 10.1007/s 11205-012-0076-y.Google Scholar
  7. Dorn, D., Fisher, J., Kirchgässner, G., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2007). Is it culture or democracy? The impact of democracy and culture on happiness. Social Indicators Research, 82, 505–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2002). Subjective questions to measure welfare and well-being: A survey. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  9. Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, economy and institutions. The Economic Journal, 110, 918–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gomez, B., & Wilson, J. (2001). Political sophistication and economic voting in the American electorate: A theory of heterogeneous attribution. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 899–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Helliwell, J., & Huang, H. (2008). How’s your government? International evidence linking good government and well-being. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 595–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hibbs, D., Rivers, D., & Vasilatos, N. (1982). On the demand for economic outcomes: Macroeconomic performance and mass political support in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany. Journal of Politics, 44, 426–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Inglehart, R. (2006, October 22–24). Democracy and happiness: What causes what? Paper presented at conference on human happiness at Notre Dame University.Google Scholar
  15. Inglehart, R., Foa, R., Peterson, C., & Welzel C. (2008). Development, freedom and rising happiness. A global perspective (1981–2007). Perspectives on Psychological Science, Association for Psychological Science, 3(4), 264–285.Google Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Key, V. O. (1966). The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting, 1936–1960. Cambrigde: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim-Prieto, C., Diener, E., Tamir, M., Scollon, C., & Diener, M. (2005). Integrating the diverse definitions of happiness: A time-sequential framework of subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 261–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kinder, D., & Kiewit, R. (1979). Economic discontent and political behavior: The role of personal grievances and collective economic judgments in congressional voting. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kinder, D., & Kiewit, R. (1981). Sociotropic politics. British Journal of Political Science, 11, 129–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kramer, G. (1971). Short-term fluctuations in US voting behavior, 1896–1964. American Political Science Review, 65, 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kramer, G. (1983). The ecological fallacy revisited: Aggregate versus individual-level evidence on economics and elections and sociotropic voting. American Political Science Review, 77, 92–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lau, R., & Sears, D. (1981). Cognitive links between economic grievances and political responses. Political Behavior, 3(4), 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis-Beck, M., & Stegmaier, M. (2007). Economic models of voting. In R. Dalton & H. Klingemann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 518–537). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Tufte, E. (1975). Determinants of the outcomes of midterm congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 69, 812–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Hoorn, A. (2007, April 2–3). A short introduction to subjective well-being: Its measurement, correlates and policy uses. Prepared for the international conference Is happiness measurable and what do those measures mean for policy?, University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’.Google Scholar
  27. Veenhoven, R. (1991). Questions on happiness. Classical topics, modern answers, blind spots. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective wellbeing, an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 7–26). London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Veenhoven, R. (1996). Developments in satisfaction research. Social Indicators Research, 37, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weitz-Shapiro, R., & Winters, M. (2008). Political participation and quality of life (Working Paper No. 538). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department. Available at SSRN:

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Imagina México: Laboratorio de FelicidadMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations