Vol. 19 No. 2 (2025): Derecho en Sociedad
ARTICLES

Rational Choice and Ideological Constraints in Public Policy Evaluation: An Analysis of Trust and Satisfaction in Latin America

PDF
  • David Gamboa Solano
DOI: https://doi.org/10.63058/des.v19i2.331

Published 2025-09-30

Keywords

  • Rational choice,
  • ideological constraints,
  • public policy,
  • trust in government,
  • satisfaction with democracy,
  • economic satisfaction,
  • Latin America
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Gamboa Solano, D. (2025). Rational Choice and Ideological Constraints in Public Policy Evaluation: An Analysis of Trust and Satisfaction in Latin America. Derecho En Sociedad, 19(2), 23p–69p. https://doi.org/10.63058/des.v19i2.331

Copyright (c) 2025 Derecho en Sociedad

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Altmetrics

Abstract

This study investigates the complex interplay between rational choice and ideological constraints in evaluating public policy in Latin America. The study examines trust in government, satisfaction with democracy, and economic satisfaction using data from the Latinobarómetro survey from 2013 to 2023. The analysis employs Cumulative Link Mixed Models (CLMM) to explore how rational economic evaluations and deep-seated ideological beliefs influence these variables.

The research reveals that institutional trust, governance perceptions, and ideological orientations significantly influence trust in government. Economic satisfaction and employment status are critical determinants of satisfaction with democracy, highlighting the importance of economic stability in shaping political attitudes. Ideological alignment with democratic values further enhances trust and satisfaction, demonstrating the impact of ideological constraints on political evaluations.

The findings suggest that while rational factors, such as economic performance, play a crucial role, ideological beliefs and partisanship also profoundly shape public perceptions and policy evaluations. The study underscores policymakers' need to consider rational and ideological factors in designing and communicating policies to foster public trust and satisfaction in Latin America.

PDF

References

  1. Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press.
  2. Anderson, C. J., & Guillory, C. A. (1997). Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/2952259
  3. Baker, A., & Greene, K. F. (2011). The Latin American left’s mandate: Free-market policies and issue voting in new democracies. World Politics, 63(1), 43–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887110000347
  4. Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021226224601
  5. Blake, C. H., & Morris, S. D. (2009). Political and analytical challenges of corruption in Latin America. In R. Sieder, L. Schjolden, & A. Angell (Eds.), The judicialization of politics in Latin America (pp. 45–66). Palgrave Macmillan.
  6. Booth, J. A., & Seligson, M. A. (2009). The legitimacy puzzle in Latin America: Political support and democracy in eight nations. Cambridge University Press.
  7. Brezzi, M., González, S., Nguyen, D., & Prats, M. (2021). An updated OECD framework on drivers of trust in public institutions to meet current and future challenges (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance No. 48). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b6c5478c-en
  8. Carlin, R. E., Singer, M. M., & Zechmeister, E. J. (Eds.). (2015). The Latin American voter: Pursuing representation and accountability in challenging contexts. University of Michigan Press.
  9. Corrales, J., & Penfold, M. (2015). Dragon in the tropics: Venezuela and the legacy of Hugo Chávez. Brookings Institution Press.
  10. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
  11. Dalton, R. J. (2013). The apartisan American: Dealignment and changing electoral politics. CQ Press.
  12. Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2005). Assessing the quality of democracy. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  13. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper & Row.
  14. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America(2nd ed.). Pearson Longman.
  15. Geddes, B. (1994). Politician’s dilemma: Building state capacity in Latin America. University of California Press.
  16. Greene, S. (2004). The role of character assessments in presidential voting. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00054.x
  17. Green, D. P., & Shapiro, I. (1994). Pathologies of rational choice theory: A critique of applications in political science. Yale University Press.
  18. Grindle, M. S. (2010). Going local: Decentralization, democratization, and the promise of good governance. Princeton University Press.
  19. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge University Press.
  20. Hetherington, M. J. (2005). Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton University Press.
  21. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
  22. Jensen, C., & Svendsen, G. T. (2003). The democratic chain of ownership: Economic and political integration and support for democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 43(4), 703–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00170.x
  23. Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600
  24. Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(92)90019-S
  25. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
  26. Kaufmann, D., & Stallings, B. (Eds.). (2009). The political economy of Latin America: Reflections on neoliberalism and development. Routledge.
  27. Kitschelt, H., & Wilkinson, S. I. (Eds.). (2007). Patrons, clients, and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. Cambridge University Press.
  28. Latinobarómetro. (2023). Methodology Latinobarómetro 2023 [PDF file]. Latinobarómetro.
  29. Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138
  30. Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 475–507. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.475
  31. Levendusky, M. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. University of Chicago Press.
  32. Levitsky, S. (2003). Transforming labour-based parties in Latin America: Argentine Peronism in comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press.
  33. Levitsky, S., & Roberts, K. M. (Eds.). (2011). The resurgence of the Latin American left. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  34. Lupu, N. (2015). Party polarization and mass partisanship: A comparative perspective. Political Behavior, 37(2), 331–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9260-7
  35. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. Free Press.
  36. McCoy, J., & Somer, M. (2019). Toward a theory of pernicious polarization and how it harms democracies: Comparative evidence and possible remedies. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 234–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218818782
  37. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. MIT Press.
  38. Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies, 34(1), 30–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414001034001002
  39. Morris, S. D., & Klesner, J. L. (2010). Corruption and trust: Theoretical considerations and evidence from Mexico. Comparative Political Studies, 43(10), 1258–1285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414010369072
  40. Mounk, Y. (2018). The people vs. democracy: Why our freedom is in danger and how to save it. Harvard University Press.
  41. Murillo, M. V., Oliveros, V., & Vaishnav, M. (2011). Economic constraints and presidential
  42. agency. Latin American Politics and Society, 53(1), 67–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2011.00117.x
  43. Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press.
  44. Pérez-Liñán, A. (2007). Presidential impeachment and the new political instability in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
  45. Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What is the quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00391.x
  46. Sachs, J. (1989). Social conflict and populist policies in Latin America. NBER Working Paper No. 2897. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w2897
  47. Skidmore, T. E., & Smith, P. H. (2005). Modern Latin America (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  48. Sniderman, P. M., & Bullock, J. G. (2004). A consistency theory of public opinion and political choice: The hypothesis of menu dependence. In L. Jacobs & R. Shapiro (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the media (pp. 437–451). Oxford University Press.
  49. The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2021). Democracy index 2020: In sickness and in health? The Economist Group.
  50. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
  51. Zechmeister, E. J., & Lupu, N. (2019). Measuring meaningful media exposure and its effects: A comparative assessment of indicators and their links to critical democratic outcomes. Comparative Political Studies, 52(3), 585–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018758762