CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 689Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Theory and DemocracyGame Theory and Voting Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 139 of the 147 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Retrospective Voting Reconsidered

Healy, Andrew, Malhotra, Neil·2013·Annual Review of Political Science
DOI 10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-212920
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We review advances in the study of retrospective voting, or how citizens evaluate and act on their perceptions of government performance. As a whole, the recent literature provides a more complete and nuanced picture of the retrospective voter as sometimes, but not always, effectively incentivizing elected officials to enhance public welfare. Leveraging examples of retrospective voting in areas other than the economy, the field is heading toward a middle ground in which voters resemble decision makers in many other domains. In many cases, a coherent logic governs voters' choices. In other instances, voters make mistakes, often in predictable ways subject to well-known psychological biases. Understanding the circumstances under which retrospective voting achieves effective democratic accountability and when it fails to do so is an important task for subsequent research. We discuss two additional issues for future exploration: a better understanding of normative benchmarks, and increased attention to the relationship between retrospective voting behavior and policy outcomes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-212920

Cites

139 of 139 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 147 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. 10.2307/2938953 · DOI
  2. Campbell J, 2011, Forum J. Appl. Res. Contemp. Polit., 9, Article 7
  3. Chen J. 2013. Distributive spending, voter partisanship, and political participation: a theory of voter turnout as retrospective evaluation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. In press
  4. Fiorina MP, 1981, Retrospective Voting in American National Elections
  5. Levitt S, 1997, J. Polit. Econ., 87, 270
  6. Persson T, 2002, Political Economics
  7. Puzo M, 1972, The Godfather
  8. Rogoff K, 1990, Am. Econ. Rev., 80, 21
  9. 10.1515/9781400830480 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–689 of 689

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Healy, A., & Malhotra, N.
Affiliations
  • Loyola Marymount University (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
ORCID
Malhotra, Neil
Venue
Annual Review of Political Science
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2013-05-11
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
285-306
ISSN
  • 1094-2939 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-1577
DOI
10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-212920
OpenAlex
W2170291011
Cited by
667
References
147
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 75 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 1
FWCI
54.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Annual Review of Political Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
Keywords
retrospective voting, government performance perceptions, democratic accountability, voting behavior, psychological biases, normative benchmarks, policy outcomes, economic voting, political decision-making

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review