Original
Do Voters Value Relief over Preparedness? Evidence from Disaster Policies in Malawi
Abstract
Growing evidence suggests that voters reward politicians for spending on disaster relief but not disaster preparedness. Yet, we know little about the mechanisms that underpin this pattern. Is it because voters generally value relief over preparedness? Or is it because voters expect preparedness policies to be less effective compared to relief policies? I test both mechanisms using a conjoint experiment in rural Malawi in which participants choose between two hypothetical candidates randomly varying attributes about their preparedness and relief policies. I find that respondents reward relief efforts over preparedness efforts, but they value effective preparedness similarly to effective relief. Additionally, respondents are more likely to reward preparedness efforts if they repeatedly observe that they are effective in mitigating disaster damages. Taken together, the evidence suggests that voters have pessimistic expectations about the effectiveness of preparedness policies but would reward preparedness similarly to relief if it is known to be effective.
中文
选民更重视救济而非备灾吗?——来自马拉维灾害政策的证据
摘要
越来越多的证据表明,选民会因政客在灾后救济上的支出而奖励他们,却不会因备灾支出而奖励他们。然而,我们对支撑这一模式的机制知之甚少。这是因为选民总体上更重视救济而非备灾吗?还是因为选民预期备灾政策相较于救济政策效果更差?我利用在马拉维农村开展的一项联合实验来检验这两种机制,参与者在两个假设候选人之间进行选择,候选人在备灾和救济政策方面的属性被随机变换。我发现,受访者会奖励救济努力而非备灾努力,但他们对有效备灾的评价与有效救济相似。此外,如果受访者反复观察到备灾努力能有效减轻灾害损失,他们更可能奖励备灾努力。总体而言,证据表明,选民对备灾政策的有效性持悲观预期,但如果备灾被证明有效,他们会像奖励救济一样奖励备灾。
关键词
灾害政策、备灾、灾后救济、选民行为、选举问责、联合实验、马拉维、政策有效性