Summary of Brodsky and Thompson: Ethos, public choice, and referendum voting -- Adam Brown, BYU Political Science

Notes navigation: Browse by title • Browse by author • Subject index

Brodsky and Thompson: Ethos, public choice, and referendum voting

Disclaimer. Don't rely on these old notes in lieu of reading the literature, but they can jog your memory. As a grad student long ago, my peers and I collaborated to write and exchange summaries of political science research. I posted them to a wiki-style website. "Wikisum" is now dead but archived here. I cannot vouch for these notes' accuracy, nor can I say who wrote them.

Brodsky and Thompson. 1993. Ethos, public choice, and referendum voting. Social science quarterly 74:22, 286-299.

In Brief

Who/what are they challenging? Public choice theory (esp. Banfield and Wilson (1964, 1971)
What are they testing? Self-interested voting behaviour in local referenda
Brodsky & Thompson ask 3 main questions. They are listed below with the findings.
Main point: Critique public choice theory
Data used: Local referendum to increase funding for public transportation via local gas tax. [similar to Shabman and Stephenson's test of Roanoke flooding. All/most will pay, few will benefit. How can we explain those who support paying even though they won't benefit?].

Questions and Answers:

Question 1: "What is the distribution of private-regarding and public-regarding attitudes in the electorate?"

Answer 1: There is no significant difference between distribution of public-regarding vs. private-regarding voters (45.7%: 54.3%)

Question 2: Do ethos attitudes explain vote choices by individuals?

Answer 2: Yes. The high correlation between the justification voters gave for their voting decisions (public vs. private) and Brodsky & Thompson's prior classification of those individuals as public vs. private-regarding demonstrated that Brodsky & Thompson's classification was a good measure.

Question 3: "What characteristics distinguish private-regarding citizens from public-regarding citizens?"

Answer 3: Ethos theory predicts that socioeconomic characteristics are good predictors of public-regarding (or private-regarding) ethos. If someone is public-regarding, they will support proposals that may hurt them as individuals. Brodsky & Thompson disagree and find that education level is the only statistically significant predictor.

Research on similar subjects

Brennan and Hamlin: Democratic devices and desires (5 shared tags)
Camerer and Fehr: When does 'economic man' dominate social behavior (5 shared tags)
Finkel and Muller: Rational choice and the dynamics of collective political action (5 shared tags)
Funk and Garcia-Monet: The relationship between personal and national concerns in public perceptions about the economy (5 shared tags)
Goodin and Roberts: The ethical voter (5 shared tags)
Kinder and Kiewiet: Sociotropic politics (5 shared tags)
Palfrey: Laboratory experiments in political economy (5 shared tags)
Schlozman, Verba, and Brady: Participation's not a paradox (5 shared tags)

Tags

Brodsky, David (author) • Thompson, Edward (author) • Political Theory • Self-Interest • Voting • Turnout • Prosocial Behavior

Wikisum home: Index of all summaries by title, by author, or by subject.