Image - Steve Johnson
Over the last decade there has been a trend of people voting for beliefs (e.g. independence, sovereignty) over material benefits (e.g. economic growth, low inflation). Beliefs are not irrational emotions, since voters may rationally prefer sovereignty, but principles and priorities, such as long-term autonomy, justice and what they consider intuitively right or wrong. While these are often missed in traditional metrics, they can be observed in polls. This opens the question, how this voter behaviour will reflect on public policy?
The Scotland Independence Referendum in 2014 and the Brexit Referendum in 2016 set the first major milestones. Being overly informed by the Remain campaign, experts and institutions, about the economic consequences the UK would suffer, voters were very aware about how Brexit would reduce exports, decrease investments, lower economic growth and increase unemployment, worsening the UK’s economy and their living standards. However, 52% of voters still chose Brexit. Throughout most polls the two main reasons for voting Leave were Immigration and Sovereignty. This shows how voters, knowing they might be poorer, wanted something superior; to take back control. Today, we can discuss if this did or did not work, but in 2016 UK citizens expressed that they cared more about their beliefs of freedom, sovereignty and independence, than about the economic advantages the European Union had provided.
While Brexit demonstrated that voters are willing to accept economic losses as a trade-off, the Scottish Independence Referendum showed their willingness to privilege beliefs over outcome. The most powerful reason for a Scottish Yes-vote was “The principle that all decisions about Scotland should be taken in Scotland”. In fact, it was ahead of the idea that “Scotland’s future looked brighter as an independent country”. Even in an optimistic framing did the principle of independence outweigh the country’s potentially positive economy and living standards outlooks.
Both examples show how voters are keener on their beliefs and principles, and prioritize them over material outcomes, such as the impact on the country’s welfare. When voters prioritise beliefs, electoral incentives shift accordingly. Politicians and therefore public policy will prioritise beliefs, rather than material benefits.
This could be risky, if it turns out that beliefs change, while material harm remains. This might have happened with the Brexit Referendum. Today 56% of UK citizens consider it was wrong to leave the EU and only 31% claim it was the right choice, while 4 out of 5 agree that it had a negative impact. This shift matters because once voters prioritise beliefs, policymakers have strong incentives to do the same.
If Brexit and Scotland illustrate belief-driven voting, Trump’s tariffs show how these preferences translate into belief-driven policy. There is almost unanimous agreement between economists that tariffs are harming the US economy in both, short and long-term. However, there appears to be a social justification, arguing that the protectionist policies aim to bring back ‘Blue Collar America’ and make justice for those Americans, whose factories closed and jobs left. The Trump Administration argues that, to conciliate the marginalised Americans, they must bring back these factories and jobs, which moved out due to neoliberal globalisation.
This idea is not new. In Trumps inauguration speech in 2017, he claimed “One by one, the factories, shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.” And then he addressed the “forgotten men and women of our country”, saying that they “will be forgotten no longer”. This idea of bringing justice, hearing the ignored and addressing the marginalised is part of his ‘America First’ belief, which seems to be prioritized overobjective economic policy, which is proven to improve welfare.
Fighting against globalisation does not seem tobe wise economic policy if we consider that taking advantage of globalisation the US GDP has increased from 10.25 trillion in 2000 to 28.75 trillion in 2024,despite the financial crash and the pandemic. Globalisation has enriched developed countries, since their citizens can buy cheaper goods from foreign countries, and therefore enjoy higher living standards. However, these material benefits seem to be less valued than their social justification. Apparently, the beliefs of bringing back justice, hearing the ignored and addressing the marginalized can be more important in American public policy, than economic growth and living standards. The direct consequences of this criteria is a poorer United States.
This is the problem with prioritizing beliefs over material outcome. Beliefs maychange and may be wrong, while the advantage of material benefits is that wecan all agree that a country with higher living standards is a country that isbetter-off. The consequence of the belief-type-politics, which does not choosepolicies in voters’ self-interest or to maximize their well-being, but rather ontheir voters’ current opinions, is more politicised, and possibly objectively worse, public policy.
Ona voter dimension this is not inherently bad, nor does it mean that voters are less intelligent. It means, that societies have new priorities, which put beliefs over material benefits. On one hand, this makes our elections more susceptible to populists while our policies become more politised. On the other, it opens questions about our society. Are we a selfish society, that prioritizes our beliefs, over the living standards of others? Should we just accept worse material outcomes to fulfil our beliefs? If democracies increasingly prioritise beliefs over benefits, the challenge is to evaluate whether we accept that mandate or act to change it.
.svg)
.jpg)
.svg)
.svg)
