IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v7y2019i2p334-350.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Voting in EU Referendums: Sociotropic versus Egocentric Voting in the Lisbon Treaty Plebiscites in Ireland

Author

Listed:
  • Johan A. Elkink

    (School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin, Ireland)

  • Stephen Quinlan

    (Department of Monitoring Society and Social Change, GESIS—Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Germany)

  • Richard Sinnott

    (School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin, Ireland / UCD Geary Institute for Public Policy, University College Dublin, Ireland)

Abstract

Economic voting is one of the most studied aspects of electoral behaviour. The dominant view is that sociotropic economic considerations are more important to voters in national elections. However, other research suggests that utilitarian motivations are key to understanding support for the EU. An EU integration referendum offers the opportunity to explore whether and when sociotropic or utilitarian motivations are more important in determining vote choice. The unusual combination of two successive referendums in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty, either side of the global financial crisis, provides the ideal opportunity to test these assumptions. Using data from two post-referendum surveys, we demonstrate that the economy mattered in both referendums but that different economic motivations drove vote choice in each, with sociotropic motivations more critical as a result of the global financial crisis. Our study has implications for economic voting and referendums and demonstrates that context is crucial in determining a voter’s economic motivations in a plebiscite.

Suggested Citation

  • Johan A. Elkink & Stephen Quinlan & Richard Sinnott, 2019. "Economic Voting in EU Referendums: Sociotropic versus Egocentric Voting in the Lisbon Treaty Plebiscites in Ireland," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 334-350.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v7:y:2019:i:2:p:334-350
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.v7i2.1944
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1944
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.v7i2.1944?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v7:y:2019:i:2:p:334-350. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.