Public policies and accountability at regional level

Authors: Braulio Gómez Fortes (University of Edinburgh)

Laura Cabeza Perez (UNED)  

‘Territorial Politics in Western and Eastern Europe’ The University of Edinburgh, the UK

Edinburgh 14th June

Regional elections matter

• Most European democracies employ a multilevel system of governance

• Devolution try to bring the government home to the people.

• Regional governments are now responsible for the provision of services that are closer to citizens. They count on numerous and significant powers in areas such as education,public health urbanism, local government, public safety, infrastructures, transport, agriculture and the environment.

• Multi-level systems of governance also raise serious concerns about their democracy deficit

Holding regional governments accountable for their actions?

• Devolution to regional level of government clouds responsibility attributions

• The assignment of responsibility is a necessary condition for accountability

• Voter confusion is the best ally of bad governments

Accountability and Regional Elections What Do We Know?

• Many cases about economic voting with aggregate data (Niemi et al,1995,Anderson,2006,Lago and Lago, 2010, Belanger and Gelineau, 2004;Gelineau and Remmer,2005)

What about the link between regional competences and voting behaviour?

If the subnational track record does not have an impact on vote-choice decisions then why should regional governments bother to work hard?

Problem 1: The regional government is not the main political actor in the managment of the economy.

Problem 2: With agregate data, we don’t know if citizens distinguish spheres of authority across levels of government

HYPOTHESIS 1: Regional policies affect regional elections

• H1: For a regional government to be held accountable for its performance we expect a positive assessment of the management of main policies whose jurisdiction belongs to the regional government to increase the likelihood of voting for the party in the regional government

HYPOTHESIS 2: The attribution of

responsability matters

• H2: The assessment of the management of main policies will differently affect the likelihood of voting for the party in the regional government by the citizens who attribute responsibility for their management to the regional government rather than those who do not attribute primary responsibility to it.

HYPOTHESIS 3:Users of regional public services,more

control, (more at stake).

• H3: The assessment of the management of main public services will differently affect the likelihood of voting for the party in the regional government by those who use said services as opposed those who don't use them.

THE CASE

• Spanish region: Andalucía (2009)

Enhance clarity of responsability in a multilevel context:

• Devolution of main policy: Health Care and Education in the 1980s. 30 years of experience (Leon,2010)

• Regional Incumbent: Mayority Government. One party uninterrupted for 25 years

• Regional and National Incumbent = same party

Methodology

• CIS-IESA-F.Pi i Sunyer (2008) Attribution Responsibilities Survey

• N= 1086 Andalucía

• Face to Face Interviews

What are relevant regional policies?Objective Measures

Expenditure Assigned to Health Care and Education in the regional budgets, 2008

What are relevant regional policies?Subjective Measures

Graph 2 Subjective Ranking of Importance of Public Policies (2007)

Who is the main responsable?Graph 4 Attribution of political responsibilities of management of health care and

education

H1: Regional policies influence in regional elections?

Table 1: The influence of Education and Health Care in supporting the regional

government

Logistic Regression. Dependent Variable: Voting Intentions 2008 (1=PSOE, 0=Not

PSOE)

EDUCATION HEALTHCARE

EDUCATION AND

HEALTHCARE

Value EDUCATION 0.15*** (0.04)

0.13*** (0.04)

Value HEALTHCARE

0.09** (0.03)

0.05 (0.04)

Value Economic Situation 0.42*** (0.08)

0.40*** (0.08)

0.40*** (0.08)

Ideological Distance -0.24*** (0.04)

-0.27*** (0.04)

-0.25*** (0.04)

Education Level (category of reference: no education)

Primary Education -0.54+ (0.29)

-0.54+ (0.28)

-0.58* (0.29)

Secondary Education -0.89*** (0.27)

-1.00*** (0.26)

-0.92*** (0.27)

University Level Education

-1.38*** (0.30)

-1.54*** (0.29)

-1.41*** (0.30)

AGE (category of reference: 18 to 29)

30 to 44 0.03

(0.18) 0.00

(0.18) 0.02

(0.19)

45 to 59 0.37+ (0.20)

0.29 (0.20)

0.35+ (0.20)

60 and over -0.04 (0.24)

-0.13 (0.24)

-0.08 (0.24)

Constant -1.26** (0.41)

-0.75+ (0.39)

-1.34 (0.42)

N 1.008 1.036 1.003 R squared 0.183 0.181 0.185

*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; + p< 0.1

H2 Is it relevant the atributtion of competences?

Table 2. The Assumption of the Attribution of Responsibilities

Logistical Regression. Dependent Variable: Voting intention 2008 (1=PSOE;

0=Not PSOE)

EDUCATION HEALTH CARE

Attributes responsibility

to the Regional Government

Does not attribute

responsibility to the Regional

Government

Attributes responsibility

to the Regional Government

Does not attribute

responsibility to the Regional

Government

Value EDUCATION 0.19*** (0.05)

0.10* (0.05)

Value HEALTH CARE

0.09* (0.04)

0.12* (0.06)

Value Economic Situation 0.34** (0.11)

0.50*** (0.11)

0.32** (0.10)

0.53*** (0.12)

Ideological Distance -0.18** (0.06)

-0.33*** (0.07)

-0.23*** (0.05)

-0.34*** (0.07)

EDUCATION LEVEL (category of reference: No Education)

Primary Education -0.43 (0.43)

-0.70+ (0.41)

-0.59 (0.37)

-0.58 (0.44)

Secondary Education -0.71+ (0.40)

-1.07** (0.38)

-1.06** (0.36)

-1.01* (0.41)

University Level Education -1.35** (0.43)

-1.38*** (0.43)

-1.54*** (0.38)

-1.74*** (0.49)

AGE (category of reference: 18 to 29)

30 to 44 0.20

(0.26) -0.19 (0.27)

0.20 (0.24)

-0.31 (0.29)

45 to 59 0.50+ (0.29)

0.23 (0.29)

0.63* (0.26)

-0.24 (0.32)

60 and over 0.16

(0.35) -0.28 (0.34)

0.18 (0.31)

-0.61 (0.38)

Constant -1.62** (0.60)

-0.81 (0.58)

-0.65 (0.54)

-0.90 (0.60)

N 516 492 609 427 R squared 0.164 0.221 0.160 0.237

Notes: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; + p< 0.1

H2 Is it relevant the attribution of competences?

Predicted probability of voting for regional government according to the evaluation of health care and attribution of responsibilities.

Predicted probability of voting for regional government according to the evaluation of education and attribution of responsibilities

H3 Users of regional public services

Table 3. El assumption of the use of public services

Logistic Regression. Dependent Variable: Voting intentions 2008 (1=PSOE; 0=Not PSOE)

EDUCATION HEALTH CARE

Public Primary

School Users Non-users Outpatient

Users Non-users

Value EDUCATION 0.10+ (0.06)

0.17*** (0.04)

Value HEALTH CARE

0.10** (0.03)

0.08 (0.12)

Value Economic Situation 0.33

(0.13) 0.48*** (0.10)

0.39*** (0.08)

0.57* (0.27)

Ideological Distance -0.31*** (0.08)

-0.22*** (0.05)

-0.26*** (0.04)

-0.36** (0.14)

EDUCATION LEVEL (category of reference: no education)

Primary Education

-0.54+ (0.32)

-0.52+ (0.29)

-0.92 (1.20)

Secondary Education -0.75* (0.33)

-0.72* (0.29)

-0.95*** (0.27)

-1.89+ (1.10)

University Level Education -1.09** (0.40)

-1.26*** (0.34)

-1.59*** (0.31)

-1.64 (1.14)

AGE (category of reference: 18 to 29)

30 to 44 0.06

(0.30) -0.05 (0.24)

-0.04 (0.19)

0.18 (0.56)

45 to 59 -0.01 (0.36)

0.56* (0.25)

0.27 (0.21)

0.27 (0.66)

60 and over 0.81

(0.78) -0.03 (0.27)

-0.16 (0.25)

0.09 (1.06)

Constant -0.79 (0.65)

-1.72 (0.48)

-0.72+ (0.41)

-0.76 (1.37)

N 339 669 930 106 R squared 0.160 0.208 0.178 0.236

Notas: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; + p< 0.1

Conclusions

• The evaluation of the main regional policies influences the vote at regional elections

• Right attribution of responsibilities enhance control of regional government.

• The use of regional public services don't affect the control of regional governments.