The effects of party identification on perceptions of pledge fulfilment: Evidence from Portugal

Published date01 November 2019
DOI10.1177/0192512118791298
Date01 November 2019
Subject MatterArticles
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512118791298
International Political Science Review
2019, Vol. 40(5) 627 –642
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0192512118791298
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
The effects of party identification
on perceptions of pledge fulfilment:
Evidence from Portugal
Ana Maria Belchior
ISCTE-IUL, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Portugal
Abstract
Empirical research has found that, despite citizens’ perceptions to the contrary, political parties tend to
deliver on their campaign promises. What are the reasons for this mismatch between perceptions and
performance? Research to date has paid insufficient attention to the reasons for such a mismatch, neglecting
the effects of political predispositions such as party identification and sympathy for the government. This
article argues that it is such political predispositions that cause biased perceptions of pledge fulfilment. Bias
towards perceiving pledges as unfulfilled is expected to be higher for voters whose political predispositions
are more unfavourable to government. The argument is supported by data on Portuguese voters and
party manifestos in the 2011 election, contributing to better understanding of the mechanisms of political
accountability.
Keywords
Citizens’ political perceptions, party pledges, party identification, government decision-making, issue
salience
The perception that politicians generally fail to deliver on their electoral promises is widespread in
western societies. To a great extent, this perception appears unrelated to the effectiveness of a
party’s performance. How can we explain such a mismatch? Empirical research has demonstrated
that the level of congruence between parties’ campaign promises and governments’ ensuing politi-
cal actions is indeed higher than conventional wisdom suggests (e.g. Mansergh and Thomson,
2007; Moury and Fernandes, 2018; Thomson, 2011). Recent laboratory experiments reiterate these
findings, demonstrating that electoral promises are more than just cheap talk (Born et al., 2017;
Corazzini et al., 2014). Despite this inconsistency, little attention has been paid to the reasons
underlying the mismatch. This is a topic of the utmost importance, given that parties’ electoral
manifesto pledges are the basis on which voters should hold them accountable for concrete
Corresponding author:
Ana Maria Belchior, Department of Political Science and Public Policies, ISCTE-IUL, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa,
Edifício ISCTE, Avenida Das Forças Armadas, Lisbon, 1649-026, Portugal.
Email: ana.belchior@iscte.pt
791298IPS0010.1177/0192512118791298International Political Science ReviewBelchior
research-article2018
Article
628 International Political Science Review 40(5)
decisions (Schedler, 1998: 197), and that promises have a significant influence on voters’ beliefs
and voting decisions (Born et al., 2017; Corazzini et al., 2014). The present study has sought to
contribute to this less widely explored field of research by looking at citizens’ misperceptions of
pledge fulfilments and exploring why this is the case.
As far as we know, only a few studies have ever researched citizens’ evaluations of the fulfil-
ment of campaign policy commitments. One of them is Thomson’s work on the Irish case, in which
he directly correlates citizens’ evaluations with actual government decision-making (i.e. whether
pledges are fulfilled or not) and finds that actual government performance regarding pledges is the
most significant explanation for citizens’ assessments (Thomson, 2011). Also relevant is the study
in which Naurin and Oscarsson employ a similar approach to the case of Sweden, demonstrating
that when voters’ evaluations are in fact correct, it is more likely to be due to their political knowl-
edge than to any partisan attachment they may feel (Naurin and Oscarsson, 2017). Our research
goes beyond these previous studies, in that it does not merely consider whether or not voters’ views
of pledge fulfilments are accurate, but more specifically addresses how pledges are misperceived
(e.g. as being unfulfilled, when in fact they actually were fulfilled) and the underlying reasons for
such misperceptions. To this end and using the 2011–2015 Portuguese government as a case study,
we explore the extent to which political predispositions (party identification and sympathy for the
government) act as a screen that biases perceptions.
Our research is based on a study of the 2011 Portuguese legislative election and the consequent
PSD/CDS-PP (centre-right Social Democratic Party/Christian-Democratic People’s Party) coali-
tion government (2011–2015). This election was held at a time of profound economic crisis and
growing public dissatisfaction with the country’s political elite and institutions (Teixeira et al.,
2013). It was characterized by increasing electoral polarization and heightened party confronta-
tion, affecting voters’ perceptions regarding responsibility for the country’s economic performance
(Magalhães, 2014: 191–197). Additionally, in 2014 more than half of Portuguese citizens stated
that they followed politics in the media less than once a week,1 again demonstrating the typically
low levels of political information among the Portuguese. Acknowledging that the measurement
bias in evaluations by individuals is not constant over time (see Duch et al., 2000), and according
to the perceptual bias explanation, it is reasonable to assume that the process whereby voters’
political perceptions are distorted is potentially more salient in adverse circumstances like those
prevailing in Portugal during this period. As party polarization and confrontation become more
accentuated with the crisis, the effects of party identification and political evaluations can also be
expected to become stronger. Taken together with dissatisfied and poorly informed citizens, these
factors contribute to making the Portuguese case a very useful one for identifying the reasons for
biased perceptions. Such misperception can be described as a motivated reasoning process,
whereby citizens feel motivated to misperceive information that is dissonant with their prior beliefs
and attitudes (Kunda, 1990; Taber and Lodge, 2006). It is thus an appropriate opportunity for us to
achieve our goal of exploring the factors that trigger this process. Because this is a case study and
because its findings are constrained by the unique context of the crisis, the Portuguese case implies
limitations on any generalization of the results. Our main aim is thus not to generalize in that way,
but rather to highlight the reasons underlying the occurrence of a motivated reasoning process,
based on a case in which such a process is more likely to happen.
Portugal is also a critical setting for this study, because the tendency of its citizens to affirm
that electoral promises are not kept coexists with a level of fulfilment that is actually quite high.
More than 80% of Portuguese citizens agreed in 2014 that parties and MPs do not try to fulfil the
promises made during campaigns (similar findings were reached in 2012 for Spain, where 87.2%
of respondents disagreed with the proposition that parties try to keep their promises;2 and also in
2000 for Sweden, where two thirds of respondents said that parties usually break their promises

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT