The Finnish Civil War and Partisan Bias: an Experimental Study of Expressive Voting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Finnish Civil War and partisan bias: an experimental study of expressive voting Noora Pirneskoski Department of Economics Hanken School of Economics Helsinki 2019 HANKEN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS Department of: Type of work: Economics Master’s thesis Author: Noora Pirneskoski Date: 9.4.2019 Title of thesis: The Finnish Civil War and partisan bias: an experimental study of expressive voting Abstract: My study contributes to the literature on expressive voting by demonstrating how the voting behavior of partisans differs from market choices of decisive individuals. The experiment follows a similar experiment protocol as Robbett and Matthews (2018), but with a completely new subject pool and context. By randomly assigning the respondents in a group of 1 or 5 individuals, the experiment tries to establish whether the self-identified descendants of the partisans of the Finnish Civil War give more expressive answers when voting in comparison to decisive individuals. My experiment successfully replicates the main findings of Robbett and Matthews (2018). The results show that the answers of the voters become significantly more partisan in comparison to those of decisive individuals. Moreover, the same result is found both for questions relating to the Civil War as well as contemporary politics. However, the likelihood of a correct answer did not seem to change between treatment and control. My results demonstrate that, alongside material preferences, affirmation of partisan identity can be a major driver for voter behavior. Further, the persistence of the partisan gap regarding both contemporary and the Civil War related facts suggests inheritability of voter choice over generations. The results show that there are benefits to further investigating expressive voting behavior with experimental methods and widening views on how political partisanship is understood. Keywords: Voting, expressivity, partisanship, civil war, experimental economics, voting behavior, expressive voting, elections CONTENTS 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 2 The Finnish Civil War and its significance today ........................................... 5 2.1. Preconditions of the Civil War ................................................................. 5 2.2. The Finnish Civil War ...............................................................................7 2.3. Memories of the war ................................................................................ 9 3 Economic theory on voting and partisan bias ............................................... 13 3.1. Partisanship and partisan bias ............................................................... 14 3.2. The expressive voting theory .................................................................. 16 3.3. Formalizing partisanship and expressive voting .................................... 18 3.3.1. Experimental evidence of expressive voting ............................................. 21 4 Experimental design and empirical strategy ................................................ 24 4.1. Experimental design .............................................................................. 24 4.2. Predictions ............................................................................................. 27 4.3. Statistical models ................................................................................... 29 4.4. Sample .................................................................................................... 32 4.4.1. Determining sample size: power and sample size analysis ...................... 33 4.5. Pilot experiments ................................................................................... 36 5 Results ........................................................................................................... 38 5.1. Descriptive statistics .............................................................................. 38 5.2. Partisan gap ............................................................................................ 41 5.3. Likelihood of a correct response ............................................................ 47 5.4. Robustness checks .................................................................................. 51 5.4.1. Bonferroni adjustment .............................................................................. 51 5.4.2. Post-study probabilities ............................................................................ 53 6 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 56 6.1. Implications for the expressive voting theory ....................................... 56 6.2. Implications for understanding partisanship........................................ 60 6.3. Limitations ............................................................................................. 62 6.4. Internal and external validity ................................................................ 64 7 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 67 References ........................................................................................................... 69 Appendix 1 Survey Form ................................................................................. 76 Appendix 2 Pilots ............................................................................................ 85 First pilot .......................................................................................................... 85 Results ..................................................................................................................... 86 Modifications to the experimental design based on the first pilot results .............. 88 Second pilot ...................................................................................................... 89 Results ..................................................................................................................... 89 Modifications to the experimental design based on the second pilot results .......... 91 Appendix 3 Individual questions, regression results...................................... 93 Appendix 4 Robustness checks ....................................................................... 94 TABLES Table 1 Casualties of the Civil War. Adapted from VNK (2001) ...................... 8 Table 2 Experimental questions ...................................................................... 25 Table 3 Two types of errors. Adapted from Casella and Berger (2002) ......... 34 Table 4 Descriptive statistics ........................................................................... 39 Table 5 Support for Civil War forces ............................................................... 40 Table 6 Voting and the partisan gap, linear regression models ..................... 44 Table 7 Likelihood of correct answer, linear likelihood estimation ............... 49 Table 8 PSPs with zero or one successful replication ..................................... 54 Table 9 Pilot 1 results ...................................................................................... 87 Table 10 Pilot 2 results ...................................................................................... 90 Table 11 Partisan results from both pilots ......................................................... 91 Table 12 All tested questions............................................................................. 92 Table 13 Linear regression results, individual questions ................................. 93 Table 14 Alternative dummyfications for Table 6 ............................................ 94 Table 15 Alternative dummyfications for Table 7 ............................................. 94 Table 16 Question type’s effect on partisan gap ............................................... 95 Table 17 Probit model, likelihood of a correct answer, challenging questions 96 FIGURES Figure 1 Power and sample size .................................................................... 36 Figure 2 Partisan gap in treatment and control groups ................................ 42 Figure 3 Partisan gap in different question categories ................................. 43 Figure 4 Voting and the likelihood of correct answer ................................... 48 1 1 INTRODUCTION The year 2018 marked the centenary of the Finnish Civil War. Despite the temporal distance, the debate on the meaning of the war is still lively, which was proved by the plethora of articles, tv-programs and commemorative events that took place throughout 2018. Even though the contemporary official discourse tries to transcend the old dichotomies of the war and instead focus on the effects of human suffering in the society, sometimes the old divisions resurface. In a recent poll by YLE, 7 % of Finns stated that the Civil War still divides the nation “strongly”, and 68 % see the divisions to be “somewhat strong” (Palmolahti, 2018). These views stem from the interpretations that the two sides of the war – the Whites and the Reds – have made of the conflict. According to Kinnunen (2014), on one hand, the Civil War is seen through the perspective of an independence struggle where the White army saved the country from Soviet rule. On the other hand, the war serves as a symbol of a fight for a more equal society where the deaths of the imprisoned and executed Red soldiers are seen victims