This paper extends the small existing theoretical literature on negative campaigning, building on work by Harrington and Hess (1996). While their analysis explores the determinants of negative campaign spending using a classic spatial voting model, this paper relies instead on a probabilistic voting model, extending the use of this popular model to a new setting. By using two different versions of the model based on different assumptions on the targeting of campaign spending, the paper generates a host of results. However, the main lesson, which emerges in fairly robust fashion regardless of specific assumptions, is that negative campaign spending is higher for the relatively centrist candidate. The more-extreme candidate in the electoral contest devotes, by contrast, comparatively more of her funds to positive campaign spending. This result, which at first appears unrelated to the main findings of Harrington and Hess (1996) and Chakrabarti's (2007) extension of their model, is actually consistent with their results upon deeper examination.
展开▼
机译:本文以Harrington and Hess(1996)的工作为基础,扩展了有关否定性竞选的现有小型理论文献。尽管他们的分析使用经典的空间投票模型探索了否定竞选支出的决定因素,但本文还是基于概率投票模型,将这种流行模型的使用扩展到了新的环境。通过基于针对竞选支出目标的不同假设使用模型的两个不同版本,该论文产生了很多结果。但是,无论有何具体假设,以相当稳健的方式得出的主要教训是,相对中间派候选人的竞选活动负支出较高。相比之下,选举竞赛中最极端的候选人则将相对更多的资金用于竞选活动。这个结果起初似乎与Harrington和Hess(1996)和Chakrabarti(2007)对其模型的扩展的主要发现无关,但实际上与他们经过更深入研究的结果一致。
展开▼