Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-vq995 Total loading time: 1.978 Render date: 2021-10-20T18:16:24.000Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Measuring Voters’ Multidimensional Policy Preferences with Conjoint Analysis: Application to Japan’s 2014 Election

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2018

Yusaku Horiuchi
Affiliation:
Professor of Government and Mitsui Professor of Japanese Studies, Department of Government, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA. Email: yusaku.horiuchi@dartmouth.edu, URL: https://sites.dartmouth.edu/horiuchi/
Daniel M. Smith
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. Email: danielmsmith@fas.harvard.edu, URL: https://sites.google.com/site/danielmarkhamsmith
Teppei Yamamoto*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. Email: teppei@mit.edu, URL: http://web.mit.edu/teppei/www
*

Abstract

Representative democracy entails the aggregation of multiple policy issues by parties into competing bundles of policies, or “manifestos,” which are then evaluated holistically by voters in elections. This aggregation process obscures the multidimensional policy preferences underlying a voter’s single choice of party or candidate. We address this problem through a conjoint experiment based on the actual party manifestos in Japan’s 2014 House of Representatives election. By juxtaposing sets of issue positions as hypothetical manifestos and asking respondents to choose one, our study identifies the effects of specific positions on the overall assessment of manifestos, heterogeneity in preferences among subgroups of respondents, and the popularity ranking of manifestos. Our analysis uncovers important discrepancies between voter preferences and the portrayal of the election results by politicians and the media as providing a policy mandate to the Liberal Democratic Party, underscoring the potential danger of inferring public opinion from election outcomes alone.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology. 

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.)

Footnotes

Authors’ note: Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2015 Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association; the 2015 Meeting of the American Political Science Association; and seminars at Dartmouth, Penn, MIT, Keio, Harvard, Doshisha, Stanford, Hiroshima, Yale, and GRIPS. We thank Mayumi Fukushima for her excellent research assistance, and Faisal Ahmed, Eric Beerbohm, Simon Chauchard, Kyle Dropp, Noam Gidron, Jane Green, Karen Jusko, Joshua Kertzer, Ellis Krauss, Kuniaki Nemoto, Brendan Nyhan, Steven Reed, Kay Shimizu, Arthur Spirling, Luke Swaine, Seiki Tanaka, and other conference and seminar participants for helpful feedback. Replication materials for this article are available at the Political Analysis Dataverse as Horiuchi, Smith, and Yamamoto (2017).

Contributing Editor: Jonathan N. Katz.

References

Alvarez, R. M., and Nagler, J.. 1995. Economics, issues and the Perot candidacy: voter choice in the 1992 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science 39(3):714744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. M., Nagler, J., and Bowler, S.. 2000. Issues, economics and the dynamics of multi-party elections: the British 1987 general election. American Political Science Review 94(1):131149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, M. M., Hainmueller, J., and Margalit, Y. M.. 2014. Preferences for international redistribution: the divide over the Eurozone bailouts. American Journal of Political Science 58(4):835856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, M. M., and Scheve, K. F.. 2013. Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110(34):1376313768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benoit, K., Conway, D., Lauderdale, B. E., Laver, M., and Mikhaylov, S.. 2016. Crowd-sourced text analysis: reproducible and agile production of political data. American Political Science Review 110(2):278295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, K., and Laver, M.. 2006. Party policy in modern democracies . New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, M., and Mullainathan, S.. 2001. Do people mean what they say? Implications for subjective survey data. American Economic Review 91(2):6772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, I., and Farlie, D. J.. 1983. Explaining and predicting elections: issue effects and party strategies in twenty-three democracies . London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Conley, P. H. 2001. Presidential mandates: how elections shape the national agenda . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, R. J. 2017. Party representation across multiple issue dimensions. Party Politics 23(6):609622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, R. J., Farrell, D. M., and McAllister, I.. 2011. Political parties and democratic linkage: how parties organize democracy . Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewan, T., and Shepsle, K. A.. 2011. Political economy models of elections. Annual Review of Political Science 14:311330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. 1957. An economic theory of democracy . New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Fowler, J. H., and Smirnov, O.. 2007. Mandates, parties, and voters: how elections shape the future . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Franchino, F., and Zucchini, F.. 2015. Voting in a multi-dimensional space: a conjoint analysis employing valence and ideology attributes of candidates. Political Science Research and Methods 3(2):221241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabel, M. J., and Huber, J. D.. 2000. Putting parties in their place: inferring party left-right ideological positions from party manifestos data. American Journal of Political Science 44(1):94103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J., and Hobolt, S. B.. 2008. Owning the issue agenda: party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies 27(3):460476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J. 2012. Entropy balancing: a multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political Analysis 20(1):2546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., and Yamamoto, T.. 2015. Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112(8):23952400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hainmueller, J., and Hopkins, D. J.. 2015. The hidden American immigration consensus: a conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science 59(3):529548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., and Yamamoto, T.. 2014. Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multi-dimensional preferences via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis 22(1):130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J.. 2009. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction . 2nd edn. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoerl, A. E., and Kennard, R. W.. 1970. Ridge regression: biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics 12(1):5567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horiuchi, Y., Smith, D. M., and Yamamoto, T.. 2017. Replication data for: measuring voters’ multidimensional policy preferences with conjoint analysis: application to Japan’s 2014 election. Harvard Dataverse, V1, doi:10.7910/DVN/KUMMUJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, T.2013. Abenomics: early success and prospects. Japan Spotlight (September/October) 4–7.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A.. 1982. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases . New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, H.-D., Hofferbert, R. I., and Budge, I.. 1994. Parties, policies, and democracy . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, G. H. 1977. A dynamic model of political equilibrium. Journal of Economic Theory 16:310334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, J. A. 1999. Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 50(1):537567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupia, A., and McCubbins, M. D.. 1998. The democratic dilemma: can citizens learn what they need to know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manin, B., Przeworski, A., and Stokes, S. C.. 1999. Elections and representation. In Democracy, accountability, and representation , ed. Przeworski, A., Stokes, S. C., and Manin, B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 2954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D. 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in econometrics , ed. Zarembka, P.. New York: Academic Press, pp. 105142.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C. 2011. Population-based survey experiments . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Noble, G. W. 2016. Abenomics in the 2014 election: showing the money (supply) and little else. In Japan decides 2014: the Japanese general election , ed. Pekkanen, R. J., Reed, S. R., and Scheiner, E.. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 155169.Google Scholar
Otake, H. 1999. Nihon seiji no tairitsujiku . Tokyo: Chuko Shinsho.Google Scholar
Petrocik, J. R. 1996. Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40(3):825850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, S. 1991. The reasoning voter: communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. B. Jr.. 2007. Aggregating and representing political preferences. In The Oxford handbook of comparative politics , ed. Boix, C. and Stokes, S. C.. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 653677.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. E. 1998. Why the poor do not expropriate the rich: an old argument in new garb. Journal of Public Economics 70(3):399424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royed, T. J. 1996. Testing the mandate model in Britain and the United States: evidence from the Reagan and Thatcher eras. British Journal of Political Science 26(1):4580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1942. Party government . New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Scheiner, E., Smith, D. M., and Thies, M. F.. 2016. The 2014 Japanese election results: the opposition cooperates, but fails to inspire. In Japan decides 2014: the Japanese general election , ed. Pekkanen, R. J., Reed, S. R., and Scheiner, E.. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 2238.Google Scholar
Smets, K., and van Ham, C.. 2013. The embarrassment of riches? A meta-analysis of individual-level research on voter turnout. Electoral Studies 32(2):344359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R. 2001. The programme to policy linkage: the fulfilment of election pledges on socio-economic policy in the Netherlands, 1986–1998. European Journal of Political Research 40(2):171197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Horiuchi et al. supplementary material

Horiuchi et al. supplementary material 1

Download Horiuchi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 722 KB
36
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Measuring Voters’ Multidimensional Policy Preferences with Conjoint Analysis: Application to Japan’s 2014 Election
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Measuring Voters’ Multidimensional Policy Preferences with Conjoint Analysis: Application to Japan’s 2014 Election
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Measuring Voters’ Multidimensional Policy Preferences with Conjoint Analysis: Application to Japan’s 2014 Election
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *