The “Weight” of Territorial Issues: Evidence from Catalonia, Scotland, and Northern Ireland

IF 2 2区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Laia Balcells, L. Daniels, Alexander Kuo
{"title":"The “Weight” of Territorial Issues: Evidence from Catalonia, Scotland, and Northern Ireland","authors":"Laia Balcells, L. Daniels, Alexander Kuo","doi":"10.5129/001041523x16801126705016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Territorial debates complicate the politics of the affected regions, as parties decide whether to compete on a territorial dimension alongside other longstanding important issues. Yet, empirical evidence is scarce regarding how much voters politically weigh territorial issues against others. We theorize that in contexts when such issues are salient, they have a greater weight relative to others due to their identity-oriented nature. We present evidence from conjoint experiments from three European regions with active territorial debates: Catalonia, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. We find that territorial preferences matter more than others for candidate choice, as the reward (punishment) of congruent (incongruent) candidates is greater, and individuals are less willing to trade off on this issue. Our results have comparative implications for political competition in multidimensional spaces.","PeriodicalId":47960,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5129/001041523x16801126705016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Territorial debates complicate the politics of the affected regions, as parties decide whether to compete on a territorial dimension alongside other longstanding important issues. Yet, empirical evidence is scarce regarding how much voters politically weigh territorial issues against others. We theorize that in contexts when such issues are salient, they have a greater weight relative to others due to their identity-oriented nature. We present evidence from conjoint experiments from three European regions with active territorial debates: Catalonia, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. We find that territorial preferences matter more than others for candidate choice, as the reward (punishment) of congruent (incongruent) candidates is greater, and individuals are less willing to trade off on this issue. Our results have comparative implications for political competition in multidimensional spaces.
领土问题的“分量”:来自加泰罗尼亚、苏格兰和北爱尔兰的证据
领土问题的争论使受影响地区的政治复杂化,因为各方要决定是否在领土问题和其他长期存在的重要问题上展开竞争。然而,关于选民在政治上如何权衡领土问题和其他问题的经验证据很少。我们的理论是,在这些问题突出的情况下,由于其身份导向的性质,它们相对于其他问题具有更大的权重。我们提供了来自三个欧洲地区的联合实验的证据,这些地区有活跃的领土争论:加泰罗尼亚、苏格兰和北爱尔兰。我们发现地域偏好对候选人选择的影响比其他因素更大,因为一致(不一致)候选人的奖励(惩罚)更大,个人不太愿意在这个问题上进行权衡。我们的研究结果对多维空间中的政治竞争具有比较意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Comparative Politics
Comparative Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Comparative Politics, an international journal presenting scholarly articles devoted to the comparative analysis of political institutions and processes,communicates new ideas and research findings to social scientists, scholars, students, and public and NGO officials. The journal is indispensable to experts in universities, research organizations, foundations, embassies, and policymaking agencies throughout the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信