IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i16p6445-d397058.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Political Economy of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Does Performance on the SDGs Affect Re-Election?

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Kroll

    (SDG Index & Dashboards, 10117 Berlin, Germany)

  • Vera Zipperer

    (Faculty of Economics and Management, Technical University, 10623 Berlin, Germany
    DIW Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

While the economic voting hypothesis is a well-researched approach to explain behavior at the ballot box, a broader perspective of economic, social and environmental issues regarding a government’s chances to get re-elected is still missing in the literature. In this context, this paper makes use for the first time of the Agenda 2030 with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as the comprehensive policy framework that all 193 UN member states have pledged to achieve. The objective of our study is therefore to examine the relationship between SDGs’ progress and the likelihood of re-election. Our analysis of 124 countries regarding performance on the SDGs over time and voting behavior shows: the chance to get re-elected as a government significantly increases for progress made towards SDG 5 (Gender Equality). Notable differences are also found for high-income vs. low-income countries. The fact that governments are rewarded at the ballot box for successful action towards gender equality is encouraging, while the mechanisms behind other SDG areas deserve more research.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Kroll & Vera Zipperer, 2020. "The Political Economy of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Does Performance on the SDGs Affect Re-Election?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-14, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6445-:d:397058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6445/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6445/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael M. Bechtel & Jens Hainmueller, 2011. "How Lasting Is Voter Gratitude? An Analysis of the Short‐ and Long‐Term Electoral Returns to Beneficial Policy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(4), pages 852-868, October.
    2. Bornier Jean Magnan de & Norpoth H. & Lewis-Beck M.S. & Lafay J.D., 1991. "Economics and Politics The calculus of support," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 2(4), pages 579-581, December.
    3. Michael Lewis-Beck & Mary Stegmaier, 2013. "The VP-function revisited: a survey of the literature on vote and popularity functions after over 40 years," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 157(3), pages 367-385, December.
    4. Christian Kroll & Anne Warchold & Prajal Pradhan, 2019. "Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Songul Gul, 2023. "Factors That Influence the Life Satisfaction of Afghan Refugees Living in Eastern Turkey: The Role of Their Migration Causes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-17, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luís Aguiar-Conraria & Pedro C. Magalhães, 2018. "Procedural Fairness, the Economy, and Support for Political Authorities (Forthcoming at Political Psychology (submitted pre-print version))," NIPE Working Papers 05/2018, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    2. Pedro C. Magalhães & Luís Aguiar-Conraria, 2017. "Procedural Fairness and Economic Voting," NIPE Working Papers 07/2017, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    3. Gebhard Kirchgässner, 2016. "Voting and Popularity," CREMA Working Paper Series 2016-08, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    4. Berlemann, Michael & Enkelmann, Sören, 2014. "The economic determinants of U.S. presidential approval: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 41-54.
    5. Reinhard Neck & Friedrich Schneider, 2024. "The popularity function: a spurious regression? The case of Austria," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 31(1), pages 298-329, February.
    6. Ruth Dassonneville & Michael S. Lewis-Beck, 2018. "Growth, Inequality, and Party Support: Valence and Positional Economic Voting," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1803, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    7. Antoine Auberger, 2020. "The impact of economic and political factors on popularity for France (1981- 2017)," Working Papers hal-02501677, HAL.
    8. Ruth Dassonneville & Michael S. Lewis-Beck, 2018. "Growth, inequality, and party support: Valence and positional economic voting," Working Papers. Collection A: Public economics, governance and decentralization 1804, Universidade de Vigo, GEN - Governance and Economics research Network.
    9. Quinlan, Stephen & Lewis-Beck, Michael S., 2021. "Forecasting government support in Irish general elections: Opinion polls and structural models," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1654-1665.
    10. Lehmann, M. Christian & Matarazzo, Hellen, 2019. "Voters’ response to in-kind transfers: Quasi-experimental evidence from prescription drug cost-sharing in Brazil," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    11. Gagliarducci, Stefano & Paserman, M. Daniele & Patacchini, Eleonora, 2019. "Hurricanes, Climate Change Policies and Electoral Accountability," IZA Discussion Papers 12334, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Filippov, Mikhail G, 2002. "Russian Voting and the Initial Economic Shock of Hyperinflation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 111(1-2), pages 73-104, March.
    13. Germà Bel & Óscar Gasulla & Ferran A. Mazaira-Font, 2020. "The effect of health and economic costs on governments' policy responses to COVID-19 crisis, under incomplete information," IREA Working Papers 202008, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Jun 2020.
    14. Jason Wei Jian Ng & Santha Vaithilingam & Grace H. Y. Lee & Gary J. Rangel, 2022. "Life Satisfaction and Incumbent Voting: Examining the Mediating Effect of Trust in Government," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 2947-2967, August.
    15. Dennis Shen & Peng Ding & Jasjeet Sekhon & Bin Yu, 2022. "Same Root Different Leaves: Time Series and Cross-Sectional Methods in Panel Data," Papers 2207.14481, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    16. Felix Arnold & Ronny Freier, 2015. "The Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout: How Conservatives Profit from Rainy Election Days," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1463, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    17. Fabian Quichimbo-Miguitama & David Matamoros & Leticia Jiménez & Pablo Quichimbo-Miguitama, 2022. "Influence of Low-Impact Development in Flood Control: A Case Study of the Febres Cordero Stormwater System of Guayaquil (Ecuador)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, June.
    18. Jeroen Klomp, 2020. "Election or Disaster Support?," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(1), pages 205-220, January.
    19. Javier García López & Raffaele Sisto & Javier Benayas & Álvaro de Juanes & Julio Lumbreras & Carlos Mataix, 2021. "Assessment of the Results and Methodology of the Sustainable Development Index for Spanish Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-29, June.
    20. Hametner, Markus, 2022. "Economics without ecology: How the SDGs fail to align socioeconomic development with environmental sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6445-:d:397058. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.