The Tribal Economy: Economic Perceptions, Economic Anxiety and the Prospects for Political Accountability
-
Diana C. Mutz
Diana C. Mutz studies political psychology and public opinion at the University of Pennsylvania, where she also serves as Director of the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. In addition to numerous journal articles, her award-winning books include
In-Your-Face Politics: The Consequences of Uncivil Media (Princeton 2015). Her most recent book isWinners and Losers: The Psychology of Foreign Trade (Princeton 2021). She is a Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences as well as a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Mutz has received the Lifetime Career Achievement Award in Political Communication from the American Political Science Association as well as a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Carnegie Foundation Fellowship.
Abstract
Whether American citizens hold presidents accountable for changes in the condition of the economy has increasingly been questioned. At the same time, the outcome of the 2016 election has been widely interpreted in economic terms. Press and pundits on both sides of the aisle have endorsed the “left behind” voter thesis suggesting that those who were economically dissatisfied or anxious voted against the incumbent party and thus elected Donald Trump. Likewise, some have argued that Trump would have won again in 2021 if not for the economic downturn caused by the COVID19 pandemic. In this study I use seven waves of nationally-representative panel data to examine change over time in individuals’ perceptions of the economy across the two most recent presidential election periods. I compare the magnitude of change from partisan rationalization of the economy to the magnitude of changes in perceptions due to the record-breaking decline in GDP during the year that COVID19 hit the US. My results provide little to no evidence that changes in perceptions due to real economic change were strong enough to overcome the effects of partisan rationalization. Given that the COVID19 recession was unusually severe, these results provide little reason for optimism that voters can hold leaders accountable for economic change.
About the author
Diana C. Mutz studies political psychology and public opinion at the University of Pennsylvania, where she also serves as Director of the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. In addition to numerous journal articles, her award-winning books include In-Your-Face Politics: The Consequences of Uncivil Media (Princeton 2015). Her most recent book is Winners and Losers: The Psychology of Foreign Trade (Princeton 2021). She is a Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences as well as a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Mutz has received the Lifetime Career Achievement Award in Political Communication from the American Political Science Association as well as a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Carnegie Foundation Fellowship.
Appendix A: Dates of Surveys and Wording of Survey Questions
Dates of Panel Survey Interviews by Amerispeak/NORC
Wave 1: October 14–31, 2016
Wave 2: July 14–31, 2017
Wave 3: October 10–November 5, 2018
Wave 4: June 7–July 5, 2019
Wave 5: February 12–March 8, 2020
Wave 6: October 6–October 30, 2020
Wave 7: April 6–April 20, 2021
Survey Question Wording
Economic Anxiety: How worried are you …
that you won’t be able to afford the health care services you and your family need?
about not having enough money for retirement?
about not being able to afford the cost of education for yourself or a family member?
Each was answered on a 4-point scale from Very worried (4) to Not at all worried (1). Measures were combined into a single index ranging from 0 to 1.
National Economy: Thinking about the economy in the country as a whole, would you say that over the past year the nation’s economy has gotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse? 5-point scale from Gotten a lot better (5) to Gotten a lot worse (1). Rescaled to range from 0 to 1.
Personal Finances: We are interested in how people are getting along financially these days. Would you say that you and your family living here are better off, worse off, or just about the same financially as you were a year ago? 5-point scale from A lot better off (5) to A lot worse off (1). Rescaled to range from 0 to 1.
Party Identification: Those initially identifying with the Republican or Democratic party were considered partisans, and those who did not were considered non-partisans. In the fixed effects analysis, dichotomous dummy variables were used to represent Republican and Democratic partisanship as identified in the first wave of the panel. Non-partisans served as the reference group.
Economic anxiety regarding healthcare costs and retirement, from a Democratic to a Republican Presidency, 2016–2020.
| Worry about affording healthcare | Worry about affording retirement | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline: October 2016 | Baseline: October 2016 | ||||||||
| Coef. | Std. Err. | t-value | p-value | Coef. | Std. Err. | t-value | p-value | ||
| Republican by wave | |||||||||
| Aug-17 | −0.051 | 0.017 | −3.050 | 0.002 | Aug-17 | −0.039 | 0.015 | −2.610 | 0.009 |
| Jun-19 | −0.063 | 0.019 | −3.330 | 0.001 | Jun-19 | −0.068 | 0.017 | −4.000 | 0.000 |
| Feb-20 | −0.096 | 0.019 | −4.900 | 0.000 | |||||
| Oct-20 | −0.104 | 0.020 | −5.180 | 0.000 | Oct-20 | −0.089 | 0.018 | −4.890 | 0.000 |
| Democrat by wave | |||||||||
| Aug-17 | 0.051 | 0.015 | 3.500 | 0.000 | Aug-17 | 0.060 | 0.013 | 4.480 | 0.000 |
| Jun-19 | 0.086 | 0.017 | 5.020 | 0.000 | Jun-19 | 0.065 | 0.015 | 4.190 | 0.000 |
| Feb-20 | 0.085 | 0.018 | 4.790 | 0.000 | |||||
| Oct-20 | 0.084 | 0.018 | 4.620 | 0.000 | Oct-20 | 0.077 | 0.017 | 4.690 | 0.000 |
| Wave | |||||||||
| Aug-17 | 0.003 | 0.010 | 0.330 | 0.741 | Aug-17 | −0.038 | 0.009 | −4.090 | 0.000 |
| Jun-19 | −0.072 | 0.012 | −6.040 | 0.000 | Jun-19 | −0.061 | 0.011 | −5.670 | 0.000 |
| Feb-20 | −0.087 | 0.012 | −6.970 | 0.000 | |||||
| Oct-20 | −0.138 | 0.013 | −10.800 | 0.000 | Oct-20 | −0.104 | 0.012 | −8.970 | 0.000 |
| Constant | |||||||||
| 0.629 | 0.004 | 148.580 | 0.000 | 0.707 | 0.004 | 189.420 | 0.000 | ||
-
Dependent variables are coded so that high scores represent greater worry. Entries are fixed effects coefficients representing individual-level change in the dependent variable relative to the 2016, pre-election baseline. Based on five waves of panel data for healthcare and four waves of panel data for retirement. For Worry about Healthcare, observations = 9582, respondents = 3164; for Worry about Retirement, observations = 8154, respondents = 3160.
Economic anxiety regarding healthcare costs and retirement, from a Republican to a Democratic Presidency, 2020–2021.
| Worry about affording healthcare | Worry about affording retirement | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline: Oct. 2020 | Baseline: Oct. 2020 | ||||||||
| Coef. | Std. Err. | t-value | p-value | Coef. | Std. Err. | t-value | p-value | ||
| Republican by wave | |||||||||
| Apr-21 | 0.059 | 0.013 | 4.530 | 0.000 | Apr-21 | 0.023 | 0.012 | 2.000 | 0.046 |
| Democrat by wave | |||||||||
| Apr-21 | −0.042 | 0.012 | −3.410 | 0.001 | Apr-21 | −0.024 | 0.011 | −2.160 | 0.031 |
| Wave | |||||||||
| Apr-21 | −0.006 | 0.009 | −0.710 | 0.475 | Apr-21 | −0.008 | 0.008 | −0.980 | 0.327 |
| Constant | |||||||||
| 0.500 | 0.004 | 141.820 | 0.000 | 0.602 | 0.003 | 191.740 | 0.000 | ||
-
Dependent variables are coded so that high scores represent greater worry. Entries are fixed effects coefficients representing individual-level change in the dependent variable relative to the 2020, pre-election baseline. Based on two waves of panel data. For Worry about Healthcare, observations = 5797, respondents = 3047; for Worry about Retirement, observations = 5797, respondents = 3047.
References
Adams, K. 2016. Key for Trump Voters? Economic Anxiety. Marketplace. Also available at https://www.marketplace.org/2016/11/11/economic-anxiety-key-some-trump-voters/.Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, C. J. 2007. “The End of Economic Voting? Contingency Dilemmas and the Limits of Democratic Accountability.” Annual Review of Political Science 10 (1): 271–96, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.050806.155344.Search in Google Scholar
Bisgaard, M. 2015. “Bias Will Find a Way: Economic Perceptions, Attributions of Blame, and Partisan-Motivated Reasoning during Crisis.” The Journal of Politics 77 (3): 849–60, https://doi.org/10.1086/681591.Search in Google Scholar
van der Brug, W., C. van der Eijk, and M. N. Franklin. 2007. The Economy and the Vote: Economic Conditions and Elections in Fifteen Countries. New York: Cambridge University Press (September 26, 2021).10.1017/CBO9780511618857Search in Google Scholar
Campbell, J. E., and J. C. Garand, eds. 2000. Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Duch, R. M., H. D. Palmer, and C. J. Anderson. 2000. “Heterogeneity in Perceptions of National Economic Conditions.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (4): 635–52, https://doi.org/10.2307/2669272.Search in Google Scholar
Edsall, T. B. 2021a. Trumpism Without Borders. The New York Times. Also available at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/opinion/trump-global-populism.html.Search in Google Scholar
Edsall, T. B. 2021b. Why Trump Still has Millions of Americans in his Grip. The New York Times. Also available at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/opinion/trump-automation-artificial-intelligence.html.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, G., and R. Andersen. 2006. “The Political Conditioning of Economic Perceptions.” The Journal of Politics 68 (1): 194–207, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00380.x.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, G., and M. Pickup. 2010. “Reversing the Causal Arrow: The Political Conditioning of Economic Perceptions in the 2000–2004 U.S. Presidential Election Cycle.” The Journal of Politics 72 (4): 1236–51, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381610000654.Search in Google Scholar
Ferguson, T. 2018. The Economic and Social Roots of Populist Rebellion: Support for Donald Trump in 2016. Institute for New Economic Thinking. Working Paper https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/research-papers/the-economic-and-social-roots-of-populist-rebellion-support-for-donald-trump-in-2016 (September 25, 2021).10.2139/ssrn.3306267Search in Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. 2017. Unstable Majorities: Polarization, Party Sorting, and Political Stalemate. Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press.Search in Google Scholar
Galston, W. A. 2021. The Bitter Heartland. American Purpose. Also available at https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/the-bitter-heartland/.Search in Google Scholar
Gramlich, J. 2021. Unvaccinated Americans are at Higher Risk from COVID-19 but Express Less Concern than Vaccinated Adults. Pew Research Center. Also available at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/24/unvaccinated-americans-are-at-higher-risk-from-covid-19-but-express-less-concern-than-vaccinated-adults/.Search in Google Scholar
Hetherington, M. J. 1996. “The Media’s Role in Forming Voters’ National Economic Evaluations in 1992.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (2): 372–95, https://doi.org/10.2307/2111629.Search in Google Scholar
Jacobs, T. 2019. A New Study Confirms (Again) That Race, Not Economics, Drove Former Democrats to Trump. Pacific Standard. Also available at https://psmag.com/news/new-study-confirms-again-that-race-not-economics-drove-former-democrats-to-trump.Search in Google Scholar
Kramer, G. H. 1983. “The Ecological Fallacy Revisited: Aggregate- versus Individual-Level Findings on Economics and Elections, and Sociotropic Voting.” American Political Science Review 77 (1): 92–111, https://doi.org/10.2307/1956013.Search in Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. S., N. F. Martini, and D. Roderick Kiewiet. 2013. “The Nature of Economic Perceptions in Mass Publics.” Electoral Studies 32 (3): 524–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.05.026.Search in Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. S., and M. Stegmaier. 2000. “Economic Determinants of Electoral Outcomes.” Annual Review of Political Science 3 (1): 183–219, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.183.Search in Google Scholar
Lohmann, S. 1999. “What Price Accountability? The Lucas Island Model and the Politics of Monetary Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (2): 396–430, https://doi.org/10.2307/2991800.Search in Google Scholar
Morisi, D., J. T. Jost, and V. Singh. 2019. “An Asymmetrical ‘President-in-Power’ Effect.” American Political Science Review 113 (2): 614–20, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055418000850.Search in Google Scholar
Muro, M., and S. Kulkarni. 2016. Voter Anger Explained—In One Chart. Brookings. Also available at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/03/15/voter-anger-explained-in-one-chart/.Search in Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C. 2018. “Status Threat, Not Economic Hardship, Explains the 2016 Presidential Vote.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (19): E4330 LP–E4339, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718155115.Search in Google Scholar
Nadeau, R., R. G. Niemi, and T. Amato. 1999. “Elite Economic Forecasts, Economic News, Mass Economic Judgments, and Presidential Approval.” The Journal of Politics 61 (1): 109–35, https://doi.org/10.2307/2647777.Search in Google Scholar
Oberhauser, A. M., D. Krier, and A. M. Kusow. 2019. “Political Moderation and Polarization in the Heartland: Economics, Rurality, and Social Identity in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.” The Sociological Quarterly 60 (2): 224–44, https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2019.1580543.Search in Google Scholar
Parker-Stephen, E. 2013. “Tides of Disagreement: How Reality Facilitates (and Inhibits) Partisan Public Opinion.” The Journal of Politics 75 (4): 1077–88, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381613000789.Search in Google Scholar
Reny, T. T., L. Collingwood, and A. A. Valenzuela. 2019. “Vote Switching in the 2016 Election: How Racial and Immigration Attitudes, Not Economics, Explain Shifts in White Voting.” Public Opinion Quarterly 83 (1): 91–113, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz011.Search in Google Scholar
Rodrik, D. 2020. Why Does Globalization Fuel Populism? Centre for Economic Policy Research. https://cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=15002 (September 25, 2021).Search in Google Scholar
Sanders, D., and N. Gavin. 2004. “Television News, Economic Perceptions and Political Preferences in Britain, 1997–2001.” The Journal of Politics 66 (4): 1245–66, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3816.2004.00298.x.Search in Google Scholar
Sargent, G. 2017. Why Did Trump Win? New Research by Democrats Offers a Worrisome Answer. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/ (September 25, 2021).Search in Google Scholar
Schaffner, B. F., M. C. Macwilliams, and T. Nteta. 2018. “Understanding White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism.” Political Science Quarterly 133 (1): 9–34, https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12737.Search in Google Scholar
Schaffner, B. F., and C. Roche. 2017. “Misinformation and Motivated Reasoning: Responses to Economic News in a Politicized Environment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 81 (1): 86–110.10.1093/poq/nfw043Search in Google Scholar
Sides, J., M. Tesler, and V. Lynn. 2017. “How Trump Lost and Won.” Journal of Democracy 28 (2): 34–44, https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0022.Search in Google Scholar
Sides, J., M. Tesler, and V. Lynn. 2018. Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400888306Search in Google Scholar
Statista 2021. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Growth Rate in the United States from 2016 to 2026. Statista. Also available at http://www.statista.com/statistics/263614/gross-domestic-product-gdp-growth-rate-in-the-united-states/.Search in Google Scholar
Tesler, M. 2021. Republicans’ Pessimistic Views on the Economy Have Little to do with the Economy. FiveThirtyEight. Also available at https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-pessimistic-views-on-the-economy-have-little-to-do-with-the-economy/.Search in Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. 2015. “The Myopic Voter? The Economy and US Presidential Elections.” Electoral Studies 39: 195–204, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.03.010.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- Introduction Fall 2021
- Articles
- It’s Only You and Me and We Just Disagree: The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization
- When Rural and Urban Become “Us” versus “Them”: How a Growing Divide is Reshaping American Politics
- Tribes and Proto-Tribes: The Deep Roots of Political Differences
- The Role of Political Elites in Eliciting Mass-Level Political Anger
- The Legacy of Rush Limbaugh Will Always Be Tied to Donald Trump
- Reflections on the Past and Present of Research on Partisan Identity
- What Do We Mean by Negative Partisanship?
- Religion as Political Tribalism
- The Tribal Economy: Economic Perceptions, Economic Anxiety and the Prospects for Political Accountability
- Book Review
- Andrea Benjamin: Racial Coalition Building in Local Elections: Elite Cues and Cross-Ethnic Voting
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- Introduction Fall 2021
- Articles
- It’s Only You and Me and We Just Disagree: The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization
- When Rural and Urban Become “Us” versus “Them”: How a Growing Divide is Reshaping American Politics
- Tribes and Proto-Tribes: The Deep Roots of Political Differences
- The Role of Political Elites in Eliciting Mass-Level Political Anger
- The Legacy of Rush Limbaugh Will Always Be Tied to Donald Trump
- Reflections on the Past and Present of Research on Partisan Identity
- What Do We Mean by Negative Partisanship?
- Religion as Political Tribalism
- The Tribal Economy: Economic Perceptions, Economic Anxiety and the Prospects for Political Accountability
- Book Review
- Andrea Benjamin: Racial Coalition Building in Local Elections: Elite Cues and Cross-Ethnic Voting
