Working Paper: NBER ID: w22975
Authors: Rafael Di Tella; Julio J. Rotemberg
Abstract: We present a simple model of populism as the rejection of “disloyal” leaders. We show that adding the assumption that people are worse off when they experience low income as a result of leader betrayal (than when it is the result of bad luck) to a simple voter choice model yields a preference for incompetent leaders. These deliver worse material outcomes in general, but they reduce the feelings of betrayal during bad times. Some evidence consistent with our model is gathered from the Trump-Clinton 2016 election: on average, subjects primed with the importance of competence in policymaking decrease their support for Trump, the candidate who scores lower on competence in our survey. But two groups respond to the treatment with a large (between 5 and 7 percentage points) increase in their support for Donald Trump: those living in rural areas and those that are low educated, white and living in urban and suburban areas.
Keywords: Populism; Competence; Betrayal; Voter Behavior; 2016 Election
JEL Codes: D64; K42; P16
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| Voters who are primed about the importance of competence in policymaking (D72) | decrease their support for Donald Trump (D79) |
| Rural voters and low-educated white voters living in urban and suburban areas (R23) | exhibit a significant increase in their support for Trump (K16) |
| Voters exhibit a preference for incompetent leaders (D72) | as a form of insurance against betrayal (G52) |
| Perceived likelihood of betrayal increases (D80) | voters may prefer leaders with lower competence (D72) |
| Preference for incompetent leaders (D73) | leads to worse material outcomes (I24) |