Replication Data for: The Source of Economic Shocks Matters for Their Political Outcomes

Do different economic shocks favor different types of political leadership? Using a survey experiment conducted on 3,500 American respondents, we offer causal evidence for an unexpected relation between different types of economic shocks and a demand for a radical political response. First, we show that individuals believe politicians have a role in preventing layoffs due to both offshoring and automation, compared to run-of-the-mill bankruptcies. Second, we find strong evidence that economic shocks due to offshoring lead to greater demands for leaders who display authoritarian traits, with no equivalent effect for layoffs due to automation. When presented with news of an offshoring event, respondents favor leaders who claim to be more willing to flout the rule of law, to implement divisive policies, and to employ force. By contrast, traits commonly associated with populism, such as siding with \"the people\" or preferring political outsiders, see no association with either offshoring or automation shocks. Our findings support the view that some economic shocks provide a greater opportunity for political candidates willing to turn to radical political solutions.不同的经济冲击是否会青睐不同类型的政治领导力？本研究基于对3500名美国受访者开展的调查实验，为不同类型经济冲击与对激进政治回应的诉求之间的意外关联提供了因果性证据。首先，我们发现，相较于寻常破产引发的裁员，受访者认为政客在预防离岸外包（offshoring）与自动化（automation）引发的裁员方面负有相应职责。其次，我们找到了充分证据表明，离岸外包引发的经济冲击会催生对威权特质型领导人的更高诉求，而自动化导致的裁员则无此效应。当受访者获知离岸外包事件的相关消息后，会更支持那些宣称愿意藐视法治、推行分裂性政策并动用武力的领导人。相较而言，通常与民粹主义（populism）相关的特质——例如站在“人民”一边或偏好政治圈外人士——与离岸外包或自动化引发的经济冲击均无关联。我们的研究结果支持这一观点：部分经济冲击会为愿意采取激进政治解决方案的政治候选人带来更多机会。