IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bde/wpaper/2237.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Polarization contaminates the link with partisan and independent institutions: evidence from 138 cabinet shifts

Author

Listed:
  • Luis Guirola

    (Banco de España)

  • Gonzalo Rivero

    (Independent researcher)

Abstract

Increasing political polarization implies that each election expands the gap between the supporters of the losing side and the winning party. This asymmetry in how citizen’s feel about the outcome of elections could propagate to the institutions under partisan control but also to those designed to be isolated from electoral pressures – such as courts or central banks. Leveraging three decades of surveys covering European 27 countries, we exploit 138 cabinet shifts between 1991 and 2019 to estimate the effect of a growing divide between winners and losers on attitudes towards both types of institutions. We find that trust in either type institutions drops around elections but that the magnitude of the drop varies substantially across contexts. The polarization of parties explains most of this variance, suggesting that, in a polarized environment, partisan hostility can contaminate attitudes towards the political system as a whole creating the conditions for democratic backsliding.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis Guirola & Gonzalo Rivero, 2022. "Polarization contaminates the link with partisan and independent institutions: evidence from 138 cabinet shifts," Working Papers 2237, Banco de España.
  • Handle: RePEc:bde:wpaper:2237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.bde.es/f/webbde/SES/Secciones/Publicaciones/PublicacionesSeriadas/DocumentosTrabajo/22/Files/dt2237e.pdf
    File Function: First version, November 2022
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sergei Guriev & Daniel Treisman, 2019. "Informational Autocrats," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(4), pages 100-127, Fall.
    2. ANDERSON, CHRISTOPHER J. & LoTEMPIO, ANDREW J., 2002. "Winning, Losing and Political Trust in America," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 335-351, April.
    3. Miller, Arthur H., 1974. "Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964–1970," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(3), pages 951-972, September.
    4. Luke Keele, 2007. "Social Capital and the Dynamics of Trust in Government," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(2), pages 241-254, April.
    5. Azzimonti, Marina & Talbert, Matthew, 2014. "Polarized business cycles," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 47-61.
    6. Przeworski, Adam & Rivero, Gonzalo & Xi, Tianyang, 2015. "Elections as a conflict processing mechanism," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 235-248.
    7. Alesina, Alberto & Drazen, Allan, 1991. "Why Are Stabilizations Delayed?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1170-1188, December.
    8. Christian Gillitzer & Nalini Prasad, 2018. "The Effect of Consumer Sentiment on Consumption: Cross-Sectional Evidence from Elections," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 234-269, October.
    9. Curini, Luigi & Jou, Willy & Memoli, Vincenzo, 2012. "Satisfaction with Democracy and the Winner/Loser Debate: The Role of Policy Preferences and Past Experience," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 241-261, April.
    10. Gerber, Alan S. & Huber, Gregory A., 2009. "Partisanship and Economic Behavior: Do Partisan Differences in Economic Forecasts Predict Real Economic Behavior?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(3), pages 407-426, August.
    11. Graham, Matthew H. & Svolik, Milan W., 2020. "Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(2), pages 392-409, May.
    12. Luis Guirola, 2021. "Does political polarization affect economic expectations?: Evidence from three decades of cabinet shifts in Europe," Working Papers 2133, Banco de España.
    13. David Fortunato & Randolph T. Stevenson, 2013. "Perceptions of Partisan Ideologies: The Effect of Coalition Participation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(2), pages 459-477, April.
    14. Daniel Stegmueller, 2013. "How Many Countries for Multilevel Modeling? A Comparison of Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(3), pages 748-761, July.
    15. Bianchi, Francesco & Kind, Thilo & Kung, Howard, 2019. "Threats to Central Bank Independence: High-Frequency Identification with Twitter," CEPR Discussion Papers 14021, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Hetherington, Marc J., 1998. "The Political Relevance of Political Trust," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(4), pages 791-808, December.
    17. Sedef Turper & Kees Aarts, 2017. "Political Trust and Sophistication: Taking Measurement Seriously," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 130(1), pages 415-434, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jae Young Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2020. "Examining the Moderation Effect of Political Trust on the Linkage between Civic Morality and Support for Environmental Taxation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Jae-Young Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2022. "Political Trust and Support for a Tax Increase for Social Welfare: The Role of Perceived Tax Burden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-12, June.
    3. Fischer, Justina, 2011. "Living under the ‘right’ government: does political ideology matter to trust in political institutions? An analysis for OECD countries," MPRA Paper 33344, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Fischer, Justina A.V., 2012. "Globalization and Political Trust," Papers 285, World Trade Institute.
    5. Libertad González & Luis Guirola & Blanca Zapater, 2023. "Partisan Abortions," Working Papers 1385, Barcelona School of Economics.
    6. Xiwen Fu, 2018. "The Contextual Effects of Political Trust on Happiness: Evidence from China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 491-516, September.
    7. Marlene Mauk, 2022. "Electoral integrity matters: how electoral process conditions the relationship between political losing and political trust," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1709-1728, June.
    8. Gloria Danqiao Cheng & Serena Does & Margaret Shih, 2024. "Partisan differences in perceived levels of democracy across presidential administrations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Jae Hyun Lee & Jaekwon Suh, 2021. "Decentralisation and government trust in South Korea: Distinguishing local government trust from national government trust," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(1), pages 68-93, January.
    10. Matthew S. Dabros & Suzanne L. Parker & Mark W. Petersen, 2015. "Assessing the Stability of Trust in Government Across Election Periods," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(4), pages 996-1011, December.
    11. Marija Džunić & Nataša Golubović & Srđan Marinković, 2020. "Determinants Of Institutional Trust In Transition Economies: Lessons From Serbia," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 65(225), pages 135-162, April – J.
    12. Gordon B. Dahl & Runjing Lu & William Mullins, 2022. "Partisan Fertility and Presidential Elections," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 473-490, December.
    13. Azzimonti, Marina, 2018. "Partisan conflict and private investment," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 114-131.
    14. Ankush Goyal & Rajender Kumar, 2022. "Does Social Welfare Programmes Influence Households Trust in Local Administration and Their Political Participation? Evidence from the MGNREG Scheme in India," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 16(3), pages 602-617, December.
    15. Newton, Kenneth, 2005. "Support for democracy: Social capital, civil society and political performance," Discussion Papers, Research Group Civil Society, Citizenship and Political Mobilization in Europe SP IV 2005-402, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    16. Elisabeth Kempf & Margarita Tsoutsoura, 2021. "Partisan Professionals: Evidence from Credit Rating Analysts," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(6), pages 2805-2856, December.
    17. Peggy Schyns & Christel Koop, 2010. "Political Distrust and Social Capital in Europe and the USA," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 145-167, March.
    18. Soo Tan & Siok Tambyah, 2011. "Generalized Trust and Trust in Institutions in Confucian Asia," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 103(3), pages 357-377, September.
    19. Mickael Melki & Andrew Pickering, 2022. "Ideological polarization and government debt," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(4), pages 811-833, August.
    20. Guanghua Han & Simin Yan, 2019. "Does Food Safety Risk Perception Affect the Public’s Trust in Their Government? An Empirical Study on a National Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-15, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    institutions; trust; polarization;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D73 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bde:wpaper:2237. 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: Ángel Rodríguez. Electronic Dissemination of Information Unit. Research Department. Banco de España (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bdegves.html .

    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.