The many twists and turns in Voter behaviour

By TCA Srinivasa Raghavan in Hindu BusinessLine

P olitical attitudes, preferences and voting behaviour have been a topic of intense scrutiny for half a century. At the end of all the study, no one really knows how voters will vote on voting day. That’s why pollsters go wrong.

Recent Indian experience with welfare programmes should have led to Indian research on whether economic factors matter more than non-economic ones. But our academics are obsessed with varna and jati, caste and sub-caste.

Irecall reading a British paper from Oxford on the subject of voters and economics about 10 years ago. The question was whether voters look at the economy as a whole or only their own pockets, and whether past misery is less important than a promise of achche din. GUARANTEES AND VOTING An important question in this regard is whether they change their minds about how to vote after political parties bribe them with income guarantees. Or perhaps other benefits that come free? An interesting experiment in the US has been described in a working paper posted recently on the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) website.

It’s by David E. Broockman, Elizabeth Rhodes, Alexander W. Bartik, Karina Dotson, Sarah Miller, Patrick K. Krause and Eva Vivalt. (Working Paper 33214). They have studied what aects political attitudes and behaviour. They say that “a large positive income shock delivered through a private guaranteed income program had limited eects on most political outcomes, with a few notable exceptions.” What happens apparently is that political predispositions don’t get aected by such increases in income. People go on believing what they have always believed. Thus they say “Despite receiving a substantial income increase ($12,000 annually) over three years, participants showed minimal changes in a wide range of political views and behaviors, including political participation, party identification, policy preferences, trust in institutions, and support for democracy.”

They then say that previous research has also shown that “government-sponsored cash transfers often increase support for incumbents and voter turnout.” They go on to say that much depends on whether it is the government or someone else who makes the transfers.

Most importantly, it appears people view work as being preferable to handouts. They say more research is needed “into how experiencing guaranteed income programs shapes attitudes about work and deservingness.”

“The relative stability of most political attitudes in the face of a substantial income shock suggests that economic circumstances may primarily aect political behavior through mechanisms other than direct eects of income…”

Overall, all the analysis hasn’t led to anything definitive about voter behaviour. It’s as unpredictable as the behaviour of a bird sitting on a branch. (After Mao Zedong banned gambling, the Chinese who love it, used to bet on when the crow would fly o.)

CETERIS PARIBUS METHOD

Ithink the researchers might have framed the question wrongly. Perhaps they should be using the ceteris paribus method, namely, all other things being constant, how would a positive change in “economic incentives” alter voter preferences.

This would certainly be a more fruitful approach in India where sociological attitudes and preferences are virtually unshakable. Economic incentives in such a situation not only have to be very substantial but also increasing at a faster rate with each election. We have seen this happening over the last two decades.

Not that there haven’t been exceptions as when BSP voters in UP aligned with Brahmins. But that’s very rare. 99 per cent of the time voters stick to their sociologies.

So the key issue for Indian political parties is to ascertain how much is enough if voter behaviour is nearly unshakable.

Competition at the margin will leave everyone worse o as recent Assembly elections have shown.