Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T20:38:59.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SINGLE-PARTY INCUMBENCY ADVANTAGE IN VIETNAM: A CONJOINT SURVEY ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC ELECTORAL SUPPORT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2020

Edmund Malesky  and
Paul Schuler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Why do voters in single-party regimes express support for the ruling party in such large numbers? Scholars offer three sets of explanations: 1) Support is manipulated by regime leaders or falsified by frightened voters; 2) Support is due to genuine popularity or “performance legitimacy”; 3) The incumbent party holds an extreme incumbency advantage due to voters’ certainty about their candidates’ policy positions or access to state resources. Despite the impressive theoretical development in this literature, these arguments have not been subjected to a research design capable of examining the relative importance of each of these factors. We use a unique survey experiment on nearly 42,000 Vietnamese citizens over three years that reduces the threat of preference falsification and allows us to isolate voter's true preferences as much as possible. While we find some evidence for all three explanations, we find substantial support for incumbency bias. An important subset of Vietnamese voters—those inclined to vote for non-party candidates—sincerely favor the party under conditions of uncertainty about the candidates’ policy stances or experience in the legislature.

Keywords

preference falsificationauthoritarian electionsincumbency advantageconjoint survey experimentVietnam
Type
Article
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 25 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bartels, Larry. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Blaydes, Lisa. 2011. Elections and Distributive Politics in Mubarak's Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, Taylor. 2015. “Voting for Democracy: Campaign Effects in Chile's Democratic Transition.” Latin American Politics and Society 57 (2): 66–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John, and Shugart, Matthew. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies 14 (4): 417–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Jie, and Zhong, Yang. 2002. “Why Do People Vote in Semicompetitive Elections in China?” Journal of Politics 64 (1): 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coutts, Elizabeth, and Jann, Ben. 2011. “Sensitive Question in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RCT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT).” Sociological Methods and Research 40 (1): 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary, and Katz, Jonathan. 1996. “Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?” American Journal of Political Science 40 (2): 478–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croke, Kevin. 2017. “Tools of Single Party Hegemony in Tanzania: Evidence from Surveys and Survey Experiments.” Democratization 24 (2): 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, Bruce. 2016. The Dictator's Dilemma: The Chinese Communist Party's Strategy for Survival. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dimitrov, Martin. 2009. “Popular Autocrats.” Journal of Democracy 20 (1): 78–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckles, David, Kam, Cindy, Maestas, Cherie, and Schaffner, Brian. 2014. “Risk Attitudes and Incumbency Advantage.” Political Behavior 36 (4): 731–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. 1981. “A New Approach to Voter Uncertainty in the Downsian Spatial Model.” American Journal of Political Science 25 (3): 483–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frye, Timothy, Gehlbach, Scott, Marquardt, Kyle, and Reuter, Ora John. 2017. “Is Putin's Popularity Real?” Post-Soviet Affairs 30 (1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gainsborough, Martin. 2005. “Party Control: Electoral Campaigning in Vietnam in the Run-up to the May 2002 National Assembly Elections.” Pacific Affairs 78 (1): 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, Felipe, and Prem, Mounu. 2018. “Can Television Bring Down a Dictator? Evidence from Chile's ‘No’ Campaign.” Journal of Comparative Economics 46 (1): 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Kenneth. 2010. “The Political Economy of Authoritarian Single-Party Dominance.” Comparative Political Studies 43 (7): 807–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens. 2012. “Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies.” Political Analysis 20 (1): 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014. “Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Muiltidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments.” Political Analysis 22 (1): 1–30.10.1093/pan/mpt024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Andrew, and Shepsle, Kenneth. 2013. “The Changing Value of Seniority in the U.S. House: Conditional Party Government Revised.” Journal of Politics 76 (1): 98–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Ronald. 1976. “The CPSU in a Soviet Election Campaign.” Soviet Studies 28 (4): 590–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1989. “Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of US House Elections, 1946–86.” American Political Science Review 83 (3): 773–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 2015. “It's Nothing Personal: The Decline of Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 77 (3): 861–873.Google Scholar
Jiang, Junyan, and Yang, Dali. 2016. “Lying or Believing? Measuring Preference Falsification from a Political Purge in China.” Comparative Political Studies 49 (5): 600–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Cindy, and Zechmeister, Elizabeth. 2013. “Name Recognition and Candidate Support.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (4): 971–986.Google Scholar
Kuran, Timur. 1991. “Now Out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European Revolution.” World Politics 44 (1): 7–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larreguy, Horacio, Marshall, John, and Snyder, James. 2016. “Leveling the Playing Field: How Campaign Advertising can Help Non-Dominant Parties.” NBER Working Paper Series, December.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeper, Thomas, Hobolt, Sara, and Tilley, James. 2019. “Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis, 1–15. doi:10.1017/pan.2019.30Google Scholar
Levitt, Steven, and Wolfram, Catherine. 1997. “Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (1): 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lust-Okar, Ellen. 2006. “Elections Under Authoritarianism: Preliminary Lessons from Jordan.” Democratization 13 (3): 456–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. [1532] 1998. Translated and with an introduction by Harvey Mansfield. Second Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Magaloni, Beatriz. 2006. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makumbe, John. 2002. “Zimbabwe's Hijacked Election.” Journal of Democracy 13 (4): 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malesky, Edmund, and Schuler, Paul. 2009. “Paint-by-Numbers Democracy: The Stakes, Structure, and Results of the 2007 Vietnamese National Assembly Election.” Journal of Vietnamese Studies 4 (1): 1–48.10.1525/vs.2009.4.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malesky, Edmund, and Schuler, Paul. 2011. “The Single-Party Dictator's Dilemma: Information in Elections Without Opposition.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 36 (4): 491–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malesky, Edmund, Schuler, Paul, and Tran, Anh. 2011. “Vietnam: Familiar Patterns and New Development Ahead of the 11th Party Congress.” Southeast Asian Affairs: 337–363.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas, and Wolfinger, Raymond. 1980. “Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 74 (3): 617–632.10.2307/1958145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, Daniel. When Civil Society Serves the State: Authoritarianism and Development in Rural China. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard, and Riezman, Raymond. 1992. “Seniority in Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 86 (4): 951–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Michael. 2015. “Elections, Information, and Policy Responsiveness in Autocratic Regimes.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (6): 691–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, Scott, and Zechmeister, Elizabeth. 2001. “Better the Devil you Know than the Saint you Don't? Risk Propensity and Vote Choice in Mexico.” Journal of Politics 63 (1): 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muralidharan, Karthik, Romero, Mauricio, and Wuthrich, Kaspar. 2019. “Factorial Designs, Model Selection, and (Incorrect) Inference in Randomized Experiments.” Unpublished Manuscript.10.3386/w26562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthoo, Abhinay, and Shepsle, Kenneth. 2014. “Seniority and Incumbency in Legislatures.” Economics & Politics 26 (1): 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, Lam Tran. 2016. “Nhũng Rào Cản Trong Vấn đề Tham gia của Phụ nữ và Thanh niên Trong kì Bầu cử ĐBQH và HĐND Cấc Cấp 2016.” Oxfam Report, presented in Hanoi.Google Scholar
Schulte, Aileen. 2002. “Consensus versus Disagreement in Disease-Related Stigma: A Comparison of Reactions to AIDS and Cancer Patients.” Sociological Perspectives 45 (1): 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth. 1972. “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition.” American Political Science Review 66 (2): 555–568.10.2307/1957799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, Dan. 2003. “Iron Cage in an Iron Fist: Authoritarian Institutions and the Personalization of Power in Malaysia.” Comparative Politics 63 (1): 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, Dan, and Wong, Joseph. 2013. “The Strength to Concede: Ruling Parties and Democratization in Developmental Asia.” Perspectives on Politics 11 (3): 717–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, James, and Stromberg, David. 2010. “Political Coverage and Accountability.” Journal of Political Accountability 118 (2): 355–408.Google Scholar
Thayer, Carlyle. 2009. “Political Legitimacy of Vietnam's One-Party State: Challenges and Responses.” Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 28 (4): 47–70.10.1177/186810340902800403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varulkar, H., and Winter, Orif. 2007 “Criticism of the Upcoming Syrian Parliamentary Elections in the Official Syrian Press and Among the Syrian Opposition.” Middle East Media Research Institute, Inquiry & Analysis Series No.345.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Malesky and Schuler supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Malesky and Schuler supplementary material(File)
File 9.5 MB