MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904610877 · doi:10.1177/1354068820923706

Economic performance and electoral volatility: Testing the economic voting hypothesis on Indian states, 1957–2013

2020· article· en· W2904610877 on OpenAlexaff
Bharatee Bhusana Dash, J. Stephen Ferris

Bibliographic record

VenueParty Politics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)EconomicsVotingBusiness cyclePoliticsMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsFinancial economicsEconometricsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The consequences of variations in economic growth for vote volatility are analyzed on a panel of 14 Indian states between 1957 and 2013. Two measures of volatility are used: changes in party vote shares at the assembly level and changes in the state average of vote volatilities constructed at the constituency level. While the results find that both vary inversely with income growth rates, volatility at the constituency level is found to be more sensitive to growth rates. Examination of the periodicity of income growth’s impact finds that growth in the final year of governance has a stronger effect on volatility than does the average growth rate arising over the incumbent’s tenure. We confirm for Indian states that vote volatility responds more to negative changes than positive changes in the growth rate and, by decomposing volatility we find, contrary to most studies, that growth rates affect internal vote shifting more than shifting between exiting parties and newcomers. The responsiveness of volatility to economic and political characteristics of the state reinforces the hypothesis that theories of economic voting have an important role to play in understanding electoral volatility and may provide a more insightful way of approaching the political business cycle.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParty PoliticsSame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207