過去或未來？個體或總體？經濟投票與選民抉擇：以2009-2017年日本眾議院選舉為例

Past or Future? Micro or Macro? Economic Voting and Voters’Decisions: Cases on Japan’s General Elections (2009-2017)

在選民投票行為研究的漫長歷史演進歷程中，「經濟投票理論」以1970年代歐美先進國的經濟動盪為背景出現並且逐漸茁壯，而同時期的日本則因為自由民主黨一黨獨大政治體制的長期存在，以及經濟表現相對良好等因素，經濟投票研究比起歐美學界大約晚了10年才開始進展。本研究因而選定同為相對穩定的民主政體，內部意識形態對立模式卻有別於歐美國家的日本作為研究案例，並透過建立統計模型分析綜合資料（人均國民所得）以及第45至48屆（2009至2017年）眾議院選舉之民調資料，藉以嘗試探討選舉中選民經濟評價與投票行為的關連性。
本研究的主要發現有兩點：其中一方面，以選民的評價對象時期（回溯、前瞻投票）觀之，選民對於政策綱領關心度較高的選舉中，其「回溯式」、「前瞻式」等兩種意識幾乎帶來同等作用。而對於政策綱領關心度不高的選舉中，「前瞻式」意識則具有較大影響力。
另一方面，根據選民所重視的經濟層次（個體經濟、總體經濟投票），在眾議院選舉的單一選區、比例代表中，「總體經濟意識」對於選民投票行為所帶來的效力，雖然看似略大於「個體經濟意識」，整體而言，兩者實則互有高低，因此或可將上述分析結果，理解為對於研究假設內容的一種佐證。

In the long historical evolution of the study of voters’voting behavior,“economic voting theory”emerged and gradually grew stronger against the background of the economic turmoil in European countries and the United States in the 1970s. At the same time, due to the long-term domination by the Liberal Democratic Party as well as the relatively good economic performance in Japan, economic voting research started to progress about 10 years later than with their European and American counterparts. Therefore, this paper selected Japan, a relatively stable democracy with different internal ideological opposition from that of European and American countries, as a research case. By establishing statistical models analyzing both aggregate data (national income per capita) and survey data of the 45th-48th (2009-2017) General (House of Representatives) Elections, this paper tries to explore the correlation between voters’economic evaluation and their voting behavior in those four elections.
There are mainly two findings of this study: On the one hand, based on voters’evaluation target period (retrospective and prospective voting), when voters’concern for the party manifestos in the elections was high, both their“retrospective”and“prospective”consciousness brought almost the same effect. As for elections which voters did not pay much attention, it was the“prospective”one that had greater influence. On the other hand, according to the economic level that voters emphasize on (pocketbook and sociotropic voting), in single-member districts and proportional representation in the House of Representatives elections, although“sociotropic consciousness”seemed to have[CGI] a greater impact on voters’voting behavior than that of“pocketbook consciousness”, overall, the two affected voters’voting behavior in approximately the same manner. Therefore, we may interpret the above analysis results as a kind of support for the hypothesis.