SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ekonomi-tek / 2014 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3

How Should We Interpret the Outcome of the June 2015 Parliamentary Election in Turkey?

Ali T. AKARCA
Pages
1–22
Publication Date
2014-09-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

A comparison of the prediction obtained from this equation with the actual realization is utilized to estimate the impact of the decision by the Peoples’ Democratic Party to participate in the election officially, rather than through independent candidates.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The outcome of the June 7, 2015 parliamentary election in Turkey is analyzed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This model is fitted to data covering the 1951-2014 period and considers the credit or blame the government gets due to economic conditions, the advantages and disadvantages of incumbency, political inertia, and realignments.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A comparison of the prediction obtained from this equation with the actual realization is utilized to estimate the impact of the decision by the Peoples’ Democratic Party to participate in the election officially, rather than through independent candidates.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Voter behavior · economic voting · strategic voting

Abstract

The outcome of the June 7, 2015 parliamentary election in Turkey is analyzed. In particular, the causes of the drop in the vote share of the ruling Justice and Development Party are identified, and their effects are measured with the help of a vote equation. This model is fitted to data covering the 1951-2014 period and considers the credit or blame the government gets due to economic conditions, the advantages and disadvantages of incumbency, political inertia, and realignments. It also takes into account strategic voting, which is caused by election thresholds and the electorate’s desire to balance the power of the government. A comparison of the prediction obtained from this equation with the actual realization is utilized to estimate the impact of the decision by the Peoples’ Democratic Party to participate in the election officially, rather than through independent candidates.

Özet

The outcome of the June 7, 2015 parliamentary election in Turkey is analyzed. In particular, the causes of the drop in the vote share of the ruling Justice and Development Party are identified, and their effects are measured with the help of a vote equation. This model is fitted to data covering the 1951-2014 period and considers the credit or blame the government gets due to economic conditions, the advantages and disadvantages of incumbency, political inertia, and realignments. It also takes into account strategic voting, which is caused by election thresholds and the electorate’s desire to balance the power of the government. A comparison of the prediction obtained from this equation with the actual realization is utilized to estimate the impact of the decision by the Peoples’ Democratic Party to participate in the election officially, rather than through independent candidates.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKARCA, A. T. (2014). How Should We Interpret the Outcome of the June 2015 Parliamentary Election in Turkey?. Ekonomi-tek, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3, 1–22. https://ajindex.com/articles/753699

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Akarca, A. T., (2015), “Modeling Political Performance of Islamist and Islamist-rooted Parties in Turkey,” Middle East Development Journal, 7, pp. 49-69.
  2. Akarca, A. T., (2014), “30 Martta Nasıl Bir Sonuç Beklenmeli ve Sonuç Nasıl Yorumlanmalı?” (What Outcome Should be Expected on March 30 and How the Outcome Should be Interpreted?) presented at Turkish Economic Association Workshop: Seçimler ve Politik Devreler (Elections and Political Cycles), Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey, 27 March 2014.
  3. Akarca, A. T., (2011a), “A Prediction for AKP’s Nationwide Vote Share in the 12 June 2011 Turkish Parliamentary Election,” Đktisat Đsletme ve Finans, 26 (302), pp. 53-74.
  4. Akarca, A. T., (2011b), “Inter-election Vote Swings for the Turkish Ruling Party: The Impact of Economic Performance and Other Factors,” Equilibrium. 6, pp. 7-25.
  5. Akarca, A. T., (2010), “Analysis of the 2009 Turkish Election Results from an Economic Voting Perspective,” European Research Studies Journal, 13, pp. 3-38.
  6. Akarca, A. T., (2009), “A Prediction for AKP’s Nationwide Vote Share in the 29 March 2009 Turkish Local Elections,” İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 24 (276), pp. 7-22.
  7. Akarca, A. T. and C. Baslevent, (2009), “Inter-party Vote Movements in Turkey: The sources of AKP Votes in 2007,” İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 24 (285), pp. 32-47.
  8. Akarca, A. T. and A. Tansel, (2007), “Social and Economic Determinants of Turkish Voter Choice in the 1995 Parliamentary Election,” Electoral Studies, 26, pp. 633-647.
  9. Akarca, A. T. and A. Tansel, (2006), “Economic Performance and Political Outcomes: An Analysis of the Turkish Parliamentary and Local Election Results Between 1950 and 2004,” Public Choice, 129, pp. 77-105.
  10. Baslevent, C. and A. T. Akarca, (2009), “Micro Evidence on Inter-Party Vote Movements in Turkey: Who Voted for AKP in 2002?” Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Germany, 10- 12 September 2009.
  11. Box, G. E. P. and G. C. Tiao, (1976), “Comparison of Forecast and Actuality,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 25, pp. 195-200.
  12. Durbin, J., (1970), “Testing for Serial Correlation in Least Squares Regression When Some of the Regressors Are Lagged Dependent Variables,” Econometrica, 38, pp. 410-421 IPSOS Social Studies Institute., (2015), “2015 Genel Seçim Sandık Sonrası Arastırması” (2015 Post General Election Study), IPSOS Sosyal Arastırmalar Enstitüsü: Đstanbul, Turkey, 8 June 2015.
  13. Lewis-Beck, M. S. and M. Paldam, (2000), “Economic Voting: