Learning, proximity and voting: theory and empirical evidence from nuclear referenda

This paper presents novel evidence on the pattern of voting in referenda and develops a spatial learning model that helps explain such behavior. In particular, we shed light on the determinants of voters’ choices over nuclear power using data on two Italian referenda. Exploiting the panel structure of the data, we document that voting against nuclear power increases, whenever the distance from the closest nuclear plant decreases. However, we detect a different voting behavior between municipalities close to existing reactors and those close to proposed ones. A possible explanation is that many citizens hold more precise information on nuclear safety because they have experienced the presence of a reactor in their vicinity for many years. Therefore, we propose a model of voting with endogenous information acquisition interacting both proximity and learning effects, whose results are compatible with the empirical findings. Citizens receive public and private signals and revise their beliefs on the risk of living close to a plant. Such revision process is nested into a spatial voting model establishing conditions for a similar or different voting behavior of the electorate based on the proximity from the reactor.

[1]  X. Vives Information and Learning in Markets: The Impact of Market Microstructure , 2008 .

[2]  Alessandro Pavan,et al.  Efficient Use of Information and Social Value of Information , 2007 .

[3]  S. Hug Occurrence and Policy Consequences of Referendums , 2004 .

[4]  Peter A. Groothuis,et al.  The Role of Social Distrust in Risk-Benefit Analysis: A Study of the Siting of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility , 1997 .

[5]  Xavier Vives,et al.  Social learning and costly information acquisition , 2000 .

[6]  Anna Bayona The social value of information with an endogenous public signal , 2017 .

[7]  Carissa Schively,et al.  Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research , 2007 .

[8]  Alvaro Sandroni,et al.  Ethical Voters and Costly Information Acquisition , 2006 .

[9]  Stephen Coate,et al.  A Group Rule–Utilitarian Approach to Voter Turnout: Theory and Evidence , 2004 .

[10]  B. Rabe,et al.  Alternatives to NIMBY gridlock: voluntary approaches to radioactive waste facility siting in Canada and the United States , 1994 .

[11]  A. Pavan,et al.  Information Acquisition and Welfare , 2014 .

[12]  H. Nurmi Voting paradoxes and referenda , 1998 .

[13]  Hannu Nurmi,et al.  Compound majority paradoxes and proportional representation , 1997 .

[14]  H. Herrera,et al.  Quorum and Turnout in Referenda , 2010 .

[15]  B. Humphreys,et al.  Proximity benefits and voting on stadium and arena subsidies , 2006 .

[16]  A. Pavan,et al.  Transparency of Information and Coordination in Economies with Investment Complementarities , 2004 .

[17]  S. Morris,et al.  Social Value of Public Information , 2002 .

[18]  X. Vives How Fast do Rational Agents Learn , 1993 .