Political activism and polarization

• Author: Raghul S. Venkatesh
• Date: 01 September 2020
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jpet.12439

J Public Econ Theory. 2020;22:1530–1558.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jpet1530

|

© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Received: 5 December 2019

|

Accepted: 6 March 2020

DOI: 10.1111/jpet.12439

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Political activism and polarization

Raghul S. Venkatesh

Aix‐Marseille School of Economics,

Marseille, France

Correspondence

Raghul S. Venkatesh, CNRS, EHESS,

Centrale Marseille, AMSE, Aix‐Marseille

University, Marseille 13001, France.

Email: Raghul.Venkatesh@univ-amu.fr

Funding information

Aix‐Marseille School of Economics

Abstract

I develop a model of activism and polarization in

the context of electoral competition. Two candi-

dates simultaneously announce policy platforms

and seek the support of ideologically inclined ac-

tivists. Activists compete to influence electoral

outcomes by expending costly support for their

respective candidates. The presence of activists

always moderates the platform choice of candi-

dates, compared to the case of no activism. The

central finding of the paper is that the relationship

between partisanship of activists and polarization

is ambiguous. As activists become increasingly

partisan, polarization of candidate platforms re-

ducesorwidensdependingonthecostsofacti-

vism. I present normative conditions under which

the presence of activism and increased partisan-

ship among activists are both welfare‐improving

for voters. Finally, introducing a public funding

option for candidates increases polarization in the

political process.

KEYWORDS

activism, downsian competition, influence seeking, polarization,

public funding

1|INTRODUCTION

Political activism is an important channel for political participation in representative democ-

racies. Political activists are an integral part of elections as they provide valuable resources to

candidates during campaigns.

1

For example, the National Election Survey (NES) data between 1952

and 2000 in the United States shows that a significant proportion (around 30–40%) of the electorate

indulged in persuasive activism—engaging with potential voters—over the years (Norris, 2002).

During this period the partisanship between activists belonging to either parties have also increased

significantly. Specifically, there has been a strong sorting of activists along partisan party lines

starting from the 1990s (Baldassarri & Gelman, 2008;Fiorina&Abrams,2008). The Pew Research

Center's study

2

in 2014 clearly documents this widening partisanship.

Today,92%ofRepublicansaretotherightofthemedianDemocrat,and94%of

Democrats are to the left of the median Republican…. Those who hold consistently liberal

or conservative views, and who hold strongly negative views of the other political party, are

far more likely to participate in the political process than the rest of the nation. This

results in a consistent “U‐shaped”pattern, with higher levels of engagement on the right

and left of the ideological spectrum, and lower levels in the center.

Unsurprisingly in the United States this widening partisanship has been accompanied by an

increase in polarization of political candidates (Bafumi & Herron, 2010; McCarthy, Poole, &

Rosenthal, 2006). Growing empirical evidence have shown that activism plays a key role in improving

voter turnout (Green & Gerber, 2015)andvote shares (Pons, 2018) of political candidates. That is,

activists besides mobilizing support through get‐out‐the‐vote campaigns can also have a persistent

persuasion effect by influencing political preferences of voters directly.

3

Activism, therefore, indirectly

affects the winning prospects of candidates and is intrinsically linked to polarization.

There are two fundamental distinctions between lobbying and political activism. Unlike lobbies,

activists do not commit to policy‐contingent (implicit) contracts—they are followers of policy platforms

(Aldrich, 1983). Further, activists have a strong party identification and commit to supporting one of

the (two) parties. While the theoretical literature on lobbying and campaign contributions has been

extensively explored (see, e.g., Baron, 1989; Grossman & Helpman, 2001;Snyder,1990), there is very

little theoretical work on the relationship between partisan activism and political polarization.

Questions related to what affects the extent of activism and how partisan activists' preferences

influence polarization remain pertinent and unanswered.

1.1 |Setup

In light of the recent empirical evidence on the persuasive effects of partisan activism and

increased divergence of political candidates, I provide a stylized model of activism to shed light

1

In the United States, for example, Barack Obama's 2008 campaign was propelled by grassroots activists and mobili-

zation. More recently, the 2016 Presidential elections also witnessed widespread activism (e.g., Bernie Sanders sup-

porters on the Democratic side and Donald Trump supporters on the Republican side). Outside the context of American

politics, the 2015 state elections in New Delhi saw a fledgling party AAP win 95% of the seats by promising a platform of

ending governmental corruption and nepotism. The campaign witnessed participation by grassroots activists and

volunteers who were able to influence voters' preferences toward supporting the newly formed party. In the 1990s, a

similar activism led campaign by right‐wing groups led to the formation of the first successful non‐Congress national

government in India, almost 50 years after independence.

2

See http://www.people‐press.org/2014/06/12/political‐polarization‐in‐the‐american‐public.

3

In an important contribution, Pons (2018) provides an estimate of the persuasion effect of activism in the context of the

2012 French presidential elections. Pons finds a significant increase in vote shares of Francois Hollande—3.24 per-

centage points in the first round and 2.75 percentage points in the second—that persisted through to the subsequent

2012 French Parliamentary elections and the 2014 European elections.

VENKATESH

|

1531