Ferreira, Paulo and Dionisio, Andreia (2008): THE ENTROPIC ANALYSIS OF ELECTORAL RESULTS: THE CASE OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
Download (359kB) | Preview
Entropy is a measure of information and uncertainty which has been used recently in different areas, besides of its original utilization in physics. Finance, microeconomics, macroeconomics, utility functions or even psychology are approached areas, using analogies between the areas physics and nature, creating a new research area: Econophysics (see, for example, Ausloos et al, 1999 or Bouchaud, 2002). This paper intends to explore the utilization of entropy through politics and election results, an area just slightly explored (Gill, 2005). It generalizes interpretation of entropy, considering it a measure of dissatisfaction and disillusion of populations in relation to politics. Some phenomena like the increase of abstention in a country, consequence of the dissatisfaction of population and of their alienation in relation to politics could be detected and analysed. This discontentment could result, for example, in the appearance of new political parties, with more division of votes and increasing entropy (result of the discontentment and uncertainty by electors). Absolute majorities, while imply less dispersion of votes, are synonym of more confidence in a given party, making a reduction of entropy. Electoral results could also be influenced by particular phenomena, like those terrorist attacks made in vespers of the two last elections in Spain, with consequences on the affluence to the polls by electors, and influencing levels of entropy. Elections' dates could also influence results: for example, elections on summer season suffer from more abstention. Elections' results could also be connected with aspects like safety feeling of citizens, with unpopular socio-economic policies taken by government or even with the economic performance of a country. One of the purposes of this paper is to find these types of phenomena and try to relate them with the concept of entropy. Another objective is to analyse the reality in different European countries.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||THE ENTROPIC ANALYSIS OF ELECTORAL RESULTS: THE CASE OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES|
|Keywords:||Entropy, electoral results, satisfaction and dissatisfaction of population|
|Subjects:||C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General > C10 - General
D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D72 - Political Processes: Rent-Seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
|Depositing User:||Andreia Dionisio|
|Date Deposited:||20. Jun 2008 00:29|
|Last Modified:||15. Feb 2013 21:56|
Abramson, P. and J. Aldrich, 1982, The Decline of Electoral Participation in America, The American Political Science Review, 76 (3), 502-521.
Alvarez, R. and C. Franklin, 1994. Uncertainty and political perceptions. Journal of Politics 56 (3), 671--688.
Ausloos, M. 1998, The Money Games Physicists Play. Europhysics News, 29 (2), 70-72.
Ausloos, M., N. Vandewalle, P. Boveroux and K. Ivanova, 1999. Application of Statistical Physics to Economic and Financial Topics, Physica A, 274.
Bailey, K. 1983. Sociologial Entropy Theory: Toward a Statistical and Verbal Congruence, Quality and Quantity, 18, 113-133
Bailey, K. 1990, Social Entropy Theory, State University of New York (SUNY) Press
Bailey, K. 1993, Social entropy theory: an application of nonequilibrium thermodynamics in human ecology, Advances in Human Ecology, 2, 133-161.
Blais, A., L. Massicotte and A. Dobrzynska, 2003. Why is Turnout Higher in Some Countries than in Others?, Elections Canada working paper.
Bouchaud, J-P., 2002. An introduction to statistical finance, Physica A, 313, 238-251.
Candeal, J., J. De Miguel, E. Induráin and G. Mehta, 2001. Utility and entropy, Economic Theory, 17, 233-238.
Chen, J. 2003. An Entropy Theory of Psychology and its Implication to Behavioral Finance, Financiële Studievereniging Rotterdam Forum, 6, 26- 31
Dacorogna, M., 1999. Econophysics Find a Forum, Physics World, Sep.
Darooneh, A. 2006a. Non-life Insurance Pricing: Statistical Mechanics Viewpoint, arXiv:cond-mat/0305062v4.
Darooneh, A. 2006b. Premium Calculation Based on Physical Principles, arXiv:cond-mat/0401308v1.
Darooneh, A. 2006c. Non-Life Insurance Pricing: Multi Agents Model, arXiv:cond-mat/0402239v1.
Dionísio, A., 2001. Análise da entropia como medida de incerteza e valor ordinal da informação no mercado bolsista de acções português, Tese de Mestrado não publicada, Universidade de Évora.
Downs, A., 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, Harper and Row
Enelow, J. and M. Hinich, 1981. A New Approach to Voter Uncertainty in the Downsian Spatial Model, American Journal of Political Science, 25 (3), 483-493.
Farmer, J. and A. Lo, 1999. Frontiers of finance: Evolution and efficient markets, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 96, 9991--9992.
Feddersen, T. and W. Pesendorfer, 1997. Abstention in Elections with Asymmetric Information and Diverse Preferences, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science working paper 1195, Northwestern University
Ferejohn, J and M. Fiorina, 1974. The paradox of not voting: a decision theoretic analysis. American Political Science Review 68, 525--536
Filho, R., M. Ameida, J. Moreira and J. Andrade Jr., 2005, Brazilian elections: voting for a scaling democracy, Physica A, 322, 698-700
Fortunato, S. and C. Castellano, 2007, Scaling and Universality in Proportional Elections, Physical Review Letters, 99, 138701
Gassebner, M., R. Jong-A-Pin and J. Mierau, 2008, Terrorism and electoral accountability: One strike, you're out!, Economics Letters, 100, 126-129
Gill, J., 2005. An entropy measure of uncertainty in vote choice. Electoral Studies, 24, 371-392.
Hidalgo, E. 2006. The why of the application of Statistical Physics to Economics, arXiv:physics/0609088v1.
Kirchgässner G., 2003, Abstention because of Indifference and Alienation, and Its Consequences for Party Competition: A Simple Psychological Model, University of St. Gallen discussion paper 2003-12.
Kirchgässner, G. and J. Schimmelpfennig, 1992, Closeness counts if it matter for electoral victory: Some empirical results for the Unitd Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany, Public Choice, 73, 283-299.
Paldam, M. and P. Skott, 1995, A rational-voter explanation of the cost of ruling, Public Choice, 83, 159-172.
Palfrey, T. and H. Rosenthal, 1983, A strategic calculus of voting, Public Choice, 41, 7-53.
Riker, W. and P. Ordeshook, 1968, A Theory of the Calculus of Voting, American Political cience Review 62, 25-42.
Santo, P. (2005), Um contributo acerca da abstenção eleitoral em revista, Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, 47, 147-150.
Shannon, C. E., 1948. A Mathematical Theory of Communication, Bell Systems Tech., 27: 379-423, 623-656.
Stanley, H., L. Amaral, X. Gabaix, P. Gopikrishnana and V.
Plerou. 2001. Similarities and differences between physics and economics. Physica A, 299, 1--15
Strömberg, D., 2004. Radio's Impact on Public Spending, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 189-221.
Vargas, A. 2002. Governabilidade e governação: novas formas de legitimação Portugal, VII Congresso Internacional del CLAD sobre La Reforma del Estado y de la Administración Pública, Portugal, October 2002.