ABSTRACT

The spread of COVID-19 sparked debates about whether incumbents should focus on saving lives or the economy. Politicians’ decisions in this dilemma could determine whether they remain in office. “Saving the economy” is predicted to affect re-election chances positively in economic voting theory. However, a public health crisis can shift the electorate’s preferences in favor of expanding healthcare support at the cost of the economy. We examine whether there is a trade-off between “saving lives” and “saving the economy” for the incumbent in receiving higher political support. Based on two experiments conducted in Russia, we measure if individuals are more likely to support, vote for, and extend the power of the incumbent based on their policies. Although both experimental factors encouraged support, the economy-driven policy had a larger effect on voting than the healthcare-driven one.

摘要

COVID-19 的传播引发了关于现任者应该关注拯救生命还是经济的争论。政治家在这种困境中的决定可能决定他们是否继续留任。经济投票理论预计“拯救经济”将对连任机会产生积极影响。然而，公共卫生危机可能会改变选民的偏好，转而支持以牺牲经济为代价扩大医疗保健支持。我们研究了现任者在获得更高政治支持方面是否需要在“拯救生命”和“拯救经济”之间进行权衡。根据在俄罗斯进行的两项实验，我们衡量了个人是否更有可能根据现任者的政策支持、投票和扩大其权力。尽管这两个实验因素都鼓励支持，