Las percepciones sobre el estado de los servicios de salud y el voto del Brexit

  1. Aguilar Fernández, Susana 1
  2. Santana Leitner, Andrés 2
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

  2. 2 Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01cby8j38

Revista:
RES. Revista Española de Sociología

ISSN: 2445-0367,  1578-2824

Año de publicación: 2021

Título del ejemplar: Monográfico de Cuidados, sección especial dedicada a Erik Olin Wright, debate sobre Ingreso Mínimo Vital, más artículos de miscelánea y reseñas

Volumen: 30

Número: 2

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.22325/FES/RES.2021.36 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: RES. Revista Española de Sociología

Resumen

Las razones del Brexit han sido extensamente analizadas. Distintos estudios se han centrado en factores como la edad, educación, etnia, ingresos, clase social, desempleo, religión, inmigración, y el apoyo a partidos y líderes. Ningún trabajo ha estudiado sin embargo el impacto de las percepciones sobre la calidad de los servicios de salud. Esta ausencia es sorprendente porque los partidarios del Brexit prometieron (engañosamente) que, de triunfar éste, el Servicio Nacional de Salud (SNS) recibiría semanalmente 350 millones de libras. Como los individuos que perciben que dichos servicios son malos se beneficiarán de un SNS mejor financiado, anticipamos que exhibirán una mayor propensión a votar a favor del Brexit. Nuestros resultados lo confirman, incluso cuando se introduce una amplia batería de controles. Este hallazgo constituye una contribución original a un tema crucial de la política internacional y enfatiza la importancia de las percepciones y las fake news en el comportamiento electoral.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abrams, D., & Travaglino, G. A. (2018). Immigration, political trust, and Brexit—Testing an aversion amplification hypothesis. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(2), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12233
  • Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In F. Csáki & B. N. Petrov (Eds.), Second International Symposium on Information Theory: Tsahkadsor, Armenia, U. S. S. R., September 2-8, 1971. Akademiai Kiado.
  • Alabrese, E., Becker, S. O., Fetzer, T., & Novy, D. (2019). Who voted for Brexit? Individual and regional data combined. European Journal of Political Economy, 56, 132–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2018.08.002
  • Anduiza, E., Gallego, A., & Muñoz, J. (2013). Turning a Blind Eye: Experimental Evidence of Partisan Bias in Attitudes Toward Corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 46(12), 1664–1692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013489081
  • Ashcroft, M. (2016, June 24). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday... And why. Lord Ashcroft Polls. https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
  • Becker, S. O., Fetzer, T., & Novy, D. (2017). Who voted for Brexit? A comprehensive district-level analysis. Economic Policy, 32(92), 601–650. https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eix012
  • Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/b97636
  • Cantarella, M., Fraccaroli, N., & Volpe, R. (2019). Does Fake News Affect Voting Behaviour? (No. 146; DEMB Working Paper Series). Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia. Dipartimento di Economia Marco Biaggi. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3402913
  • Christmann, A., & Danaci, D. (2012). Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: Direct and Indirect Effects on Religious Minorities in Switzerland. Politics and Religion, 5(1), 133–160. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048311000666
  • Clarke, H. D., Goodwin, M., & Whiteley, P. (2017). Why Britain Voted for Brexit: An Individual-Level Analysis of the 2016 Referendum Vote. Parliamentary Affairs, 70(3), 439–464. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsx005
  • Crescenzi, R., Cataldo, M. D., & Faggian, A. (2018). Internationalized at work and localistic at home: The ‘split’ Europeanization behind Brexit. Papers in Regional Science, 97(1), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12350
  • Curtice, J. (2017). Has Brexit Reshaped British Politics? (pp. 1–24). NatCen Social Research. https://whatukthinks.org/eu/analysis/has-brexit-reshaped-british-politics/
  • Del Vicario, M., Zollo, F., Caldarelli, G., Scala, A., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2017). Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate. Social Networks, 50, 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.02.002
  • Donovan, T., & Bowler, S. (1998). Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: An Extension. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 1020–1024. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991742
  • Dorling, D. (2016). Brexit: The decision of a divided country. BMJ, 354(1–2), i3697. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3697
  • ESS. (2018a). European Social Survey Round 8 Data (2016). Data file edition 2.1. NSD – Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway – Data Archive and Distributor of ESS Data for ESS ERIC.
  • ESS. (2018b). European Social Survey Round 8 Data (2016). ESS8- 2016 Documentation Report. Edition 2.1 (pp. 1–190). European Social Survey Data Archive, NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data for ESS ERIC.
  • ESS. (2018c). European Social Survey Round 8 Data (2016). UK Country—Specific Data. NSD – Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway – Data Archive and Distributor of ESS Data for ESS ERIC.
  • Fidrmuc, J., Hulényi, M., & Tunali, C. (2016). Money Can’t Buy EU Love: European Funds and the Brexit Referendum (CESifo Working Paper Series No. 6107). CESifo. https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/cesceswps/_5f6107.htm
  • Frey, B. S., & Goette, L. (1998). Does the Popular Vote Destroy Civil Rights? American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1343–1348. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991861
  • Gamble, B. S. (1997). Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111715
  • Goodwin, M. J., & Heath, O. (2016). The 2016 Referendum, Brexit and the Left Behind: An Aggregate-level Analysis of the Result. The Political Quarterly, 87(3), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12285
  • Halikiopoulou, D., & Vlandas, T. (2017). Voting to leave: Economic insecurity and the Brexit vote. In B. Leruth, N. Startin, & S. Usherwood (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Euroscepticism (pp. 139–154). Routledge.
  • Heinze, G., & Dunkler, D. (2017). Five myths about variable selection. Transplant International, 30(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/tri.12895
  • Hobolt, S. B. (2016). The Brexit vote: A divided nation, a divided continent. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(9), 1259–1277. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1225785
  • Ipsos MORI. (2016). Political Monitor Topline Results, 16 June 2016. IPSOS MORI. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/migrations/en-uk/files/Assets/Docs/Polls/pm-16-june-2016-topline.pdf
  • Janmaat, J. G., Melis, G., Green, A., & Pensiero, N. (2018). Changing preferences for Brexit: Identifying the groups with volatile support for ‘Leave’ (No. 65; LLAKES Research Paper). Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies. Institute for Social and Economic Research. https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/525212
  • Jasper, J. M. (2011). Emotions and Social Movements: Twenty Years of Theory and Research. Annual Review of Sociology, 37(1), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150015
  • Jermias, J. (2001). Cognitive dissonance and resistance to change: The influence of commitment confirmation and feedback on judgment usefulness of accounting systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(00)00008-8
  • Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.4.557
  • LeDuc, L. (2003). The politics of direct democracy: Referendums in global perspective. Broadview Press.
  • Lewis, D. C. (2011). Direct democracy and minority rights: Same-sex marriage bans in the U.S. Social Science Quarterly, 92(2), 364–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00773.x
  • Liberini, F., Oswald, A. J., Proto, E., & Redoano, M. (2019). Was Brexit triggered by the old and unhappy? Or by financial feelings? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 161, 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.03.024
  • Lupia, A., Krupnikov, Y., Levine, A. S., Piston, S., & Von Hagen-Jamar, A. (2010). Why State Constitutions Differ in their Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage. The Journal of Politics, 72(4), 1222–1235. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610000642
  • Mendelsohn, M., & Cutler, F. (2000). The Effect of Referendums on Democratic Citizens: Information, Politicization, Efficacy and Tolerance. British Journal of Political Science, 30(4), 669–698. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400220292
  • Palma, P. A., Sinclair, V. M., & Esses, V. M. (2019). Facts versus feelings: Objective and subjective experiences of diversity differentially impact attitudes towards the European Union: Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219854805
  • Rolfe, H., Ahlstrom-Vij, K., Hudson-Sharp, N., & Runge, J. (2018, October 8). Post-Brexit Immigration Policy: Reconciling Public Perceptions with Economic Evidence. National Institute of Economic and Social Research. https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/post-brexit-immigration-policy-reconciling-public-perceptions-economic-evidence
  • Santana, A., & Rama, J. (2017). Manual de análisis de datos con Stata (1st ed.). Editorial Tecnos. https://www.tecnos.es/ficha.php?id=5044951&pageid=4
  • Sartori, G. (1969). From the Sociology of Politics to Political Sociology*. Government and Opposition, 4(2), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.1969.tb00173.x
  • Shaw, D., Smith, C. M., & Scully, J. (2017). Why did Brexit happen? Using causal mapping to analyse secondary, longitudinal data. European Journal of Operational Research, 263(3), 1019–1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.051
  • Smith, M. (2005). The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and the United States. PS: Political Science & Politics, 38(2), 225–228. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096505056349
  • Swales, K. (2016). Understanding the Leave vote (pp. 1–32). NatCen Social Research. https://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/research/understanding-the-leave-vote/
  • Townson, S. (2019). New elements behind the Brexit Referendum: The Impact of health Perceptions on the Brexit Vote.
  • Uleri, P. V. (1996). Introduction. In M. Gallagher & P. V. Uleri (Eds.), The referendum experience in Europe (pp. 1–19). Macmillan Publishing Company.
  • Vanderleeuw, J. M., & Engstrom, R. L. (1987). Race, Referendums, and Roll-Off. The Journal of Politics, 49(4), 1081–1092. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130785
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet