| In the section | Articles |
| Title of the article | Spatial Modeling of Voting Preferences in Russian Federation |
| Pages | 70-100 |
| Author 1 | Elena Anatolyevna Podkolzina Candidate of Sciences (Economics)Assistant Professor: Faculty of Economic Sciences and Department of Applied Economics, Deputy Director in Center for Institutional Studies National Research University Higher School of Economics 20 Myasnitskaya St., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ORCID: 0000-0002-8363-6711 |
| Author 2 | Olga Anatolyevna Demidova Candidate of Science (Physics and Mathematics), Associate Professor Faculty of Economic Science National Research University Higher School of Economics 20 Myasnitskaya St., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ORCID: 0000-0001-5201-3207 |
| Author 3 | Lada Evgenyevna Kuletskaya Postgraduate Student National Research University Higher School of Economics 20 Myasnitskaya St., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ORCID: 0000-0003-2069-9800 |
| Abstract | The main objective of this work is to assess the influence of individuals living in neighboring territorial areas on each other in decision-making on the example of presidential election in Russia in 2018 using data on 2718 territorial election commissions (TECs). Local and global indicators of spatial autocorrelation (Moran, Geary, Getis-Ord indices) calculated by the authors provide empirical evidence of global positive autocorrelation (i.e. in the country as a whole voters in each TEC vote similar to their neighbors). We identify TECs that can be included in local clusters (where voters vote similar) or in local outliers (surrounded by such TECs where voters vote opposite. Using the example of Tatarstan, the region where both local cluster and outlier TECs were most common we analyzed which economic indicators together with spatial ones influence the support of the main and opposition candidates. It was shown that the willingness to vote for the main candidate is explained by the increase in salaries in the area, but at the same time the indicators of economic activity in that area and the potential mobility of citizens have a negative impact on the support of the main candidate. Salary changes have no effect on votes in favour of opposition candidates, while other indicators show an inverse correlation. We have also shown that spatial effect models are preferable to OLS models for analyzing voting results |
| Code | 332 |
| JEL | C21, C31, R5 |
| DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2020.2.070-100 |
| Keywords | spatial autocorrelation ♦ electoral preferences ♦ global and local indices of spatial autocorrelation |
| Download | |
| For citation | Podkolzina E.A., Demidova O.A., Kuletskaya L.E. Spatial Modeling оf Voting Preferences in Russian Federation. Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika = Spatial Economics, 2020, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 70–100. https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2020.2.070-100 (In Russian) |
| References | 1. Anselin L. Local Indicators of Spatial Association-LISA. Geographical Analysis, 1995, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 93–115. 2. Burnett W., Lacombe D.J. Accounting for Spatial Autocorrelation in the 2004 Presidential Popular Vote: A Reassessment of the Evidence. The Review of Regional Studies, 2012, vol. 42, issue 1, pp. 75–89. 3. Clem R.S., Craumer P.R. Spatial Patterns of Political Choice in the Post-Yel’tsin Era: The Electoral Geography of Russia’s 2000 Presidential Election. Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, 2000, vol. 41, issue 7, pp. 465–482. 4. Clem R.S., Craumer P.R. The Geography of the Russian 1995 Parliamentary Election: Continuity, Change, and Correlates. Post-Soviet Geography, 1995a, vol. 36, issue 10, pp. 587–616. 5. Clem R.S., Craumer P.R. The Politics of Russia’s Regions: A Geographical Analysis of the Russian Election and Constitutional Plebiscite of December 1993. Post-Soviet Geography, 1995b, vol. 36, issue 2, pp. 67–86. 6. Coleman S. Voting and Conformity: Russia, 1993–2016. Mathematical Social Sciences, 2018, vol. 94, pp. 87–95. 7. Cutts D., Webber D., Widdop P., Johnston R., Pattie C. With a Little Help from my Neighbours: A Spatial Analysis of the Impact of Local Campaigns at the 2010 British General Election. Electoral Studies, 2014, vol. 34, pp. 216–231. 8. Dow J.K. A Comparative Spatial Analysis of Majoritarian and Proportional Elections. Electoral Studies, 2001, vol. 20, issue 1, pp. 109–125. 9. Elhorst J.P. Spatial Panel Data Models. Handbook of Applied Spatial Analysis: Software Tools, Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 377–407. 10. Handbook of Applied Spatial Analysis: Software Tools, Methods and Applications. Edited by M.M. Fischer, A. Getis. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, 812 p. 11. Jensen C.D., Lacombe D.J., McIntyre S.G. A Bayesian Spatial Econometric Analysis of the 2010 UK General Election. Papers in Regional Science, 2013, vol. 92, issue 3, pp. 651–666. 12. Kim J., Elliott E., Wang D. A Spatial Analysis of County-Level Outcomes in US Presidential Elections: 1988–2000. Electoral Studies, 2003, vol. 22, issue 4, pp. 741–761. 13. Kobak D., Shpilkin S., Pshenichnikov M. Statistical Fingerprints of Electoral Fraud? Significance, 2016, vol. 13, issue 4, pp. 20–23. 14. Moraski B., Reisinger W.M. Spatial Contagion in Regional Machine Strength: Evidence from Voting in Russia’s Federal Elections. APSA. Annual Meeting Paper, 2010, 48 p. 15. Moraski B.J., Reisinger W.M. The Diffusion of Deference: Regional Machine Strength and Federal Election Results in Russia, 2014, 50 р. Available at: (accessed April 2020). 16. Mur J., Angulo A., Lopez F. Looking for the Causes of Instability in Spatial Econometric Models: An Application to 2008 Spanish General Elections. International Regional Science Review, 2012, vol. 35, issue 3, pp. 303–228. 17. O’Loughlin J., Shin M., Talbot P. Political Geographies and Cleavages in the Russian Parliamentary Elections. Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, 1996, vol. 37, issue 6, pp. 355–385. 18. Poole K.T., Rosenthal H. US Presidential Elections 1968–80: A Spatial Analysis. Ame-rican Journal of Political Science, 1984, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 282–312. 19. Shen A. Elections and Statistics: The Case of ‘United Russia’, 2009–2018, 2018, July. Available at: (accessed April 2020). (In Russian). 20. Stanford Researcher Believes that there was Very Little Falsifications in the Russian Presidential Election. How did He Figure it out? Meduza [Medusa], 2018, 7 May. Available at: (accessed April 2020). (In Russian). 21. Statistics Shows that 10 Million Ballots were Stuff for Putin. Radio ‘Svoboda’ [Radio ‘Liberty’], 2018, 20 March. Available at: (accessed April 2020). (In Russian). 22. Sutter R.C. Spatial Econometric Modeling of Presidential Voting Outcomes. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Toledo, 2005. Available at: (accessed April 2020). |
| Financing | The survey was sponsored by the Basic Research Program of Higher School of Economics (NRU HSE) in 2020 and by the Faculty of Economic Sciences |
| Submitted | 15.04.2020 |
| Revised | 22.05.2020 |
| Published online | 30.06.2020 |