The VOX dataset

We use micro-economic data referring to the voting decisions and the various characteristics of a set of Swiss citizens (i.e., the Swiss over 18 years old) on several environmental initiatives or referenda.

The Gfs¹⁹ institute through a telephone survey (called VOX) collects the data within ten days after each referendum asking respondents whether and how they voted.

In order to grasp environmental initiatives and referenda, we look for ballots that directly or indirectly affect the manner and the extent to which human society makes use of non-human resources (Congleton, 1996, 3). We select nine recent initiatives, referendums or counter-proposals²⁰ that came before the Swiss electorate between 2000 and 2004. These initiatives, if accepted, were expected to increase the supply of environmental quality and cover a wide variety of issues. The subjects of the initiatives range from traffic reduction to banning nuclear power plants and imposing taxes on energy.

The environmental dimension of these propositions is clearly assessed in the messages delivered to each voter by the Federal Swiss Executive Committee and the Swiss Federal Parliament. The environmental dimension of the “liberalization of the electricity market” initiative is however less obvious as ecological parties and organizations gave different watchwords to their members. The WWF supported the initiative since it enhances the transparency of key ecological information such as the origin and production process of the electricity. The Greens ecological parties²¹ opposed the liberalization since they feared that it would ruin all measures intending to rationalize the production and consumption of electricity. Identically, the opponents to anti-nuclear proposition raised ecological arguments in defense of the use of the nuclear power plants. They argued that the production of nuclear electricity was free of CO2 emissions and green house gases. It is possible therefore that some green voters may have voted against such anti-nuclear initiatives.

We report in table 3.1 the content, the participation rate and the percentages of “Yes” and “No” votes for each initiative in the effective vote²² and in the VOX sample. The appendix 1 provides further details on the subject of each initiative. Each VOX sample counts around 1000 observations²³. We consider also two non-environmental initiatives (an initiative requiring the adhesion of Switzerland to UNO and an initiative aiming at distributing the Swiss National Bank’s gold surplus to the retirement funds and insurance programs). These “placebo” initiatives allow to examine the specificity of environmental propositions and the robustness of results.

19 Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für praktische Sozialforschung (see http://www.gfs.ch/, January 2004)

20 In the following, we consider the terms initiative, referenda and counter-proposal as synonymous.

21 Except for the green fraction of the Swiss Socialists Party.

22 Source: Swiss Federal Administration, see http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/pore/vi/index.html

23 The sample of the 3 votes of May 2004 (nuclear ban, nuclear moratorium and motorless Sunday) are larger since 2 surveys have been conducted because of the unusual number of objects (9 in total) submitted to the citizen on that day. As both surveys were sharing the information our study requires, we could combine the 2 surveys and dispose of a larger number of observations.

The effective participation rates are around 40 – 45 % and are systematically higher in the VOX samples. This may be due to the fact that the act of voting is considered a moral duty and people do not like to confess that they did not participate. Such low participation rates are quite common for Switzerland, where citizens are called upon to vote up to 4 times a years, even though registration is automatic and Swiss citizens over 18 years of age are systematically given of a voting card.

Furthermore, the possibility of correspondence voting exists in Switzerland. There is however no obligation to vote except in the canton of Schaffhouse²⁴.

Tab. 3.1 Environmental initiatives and referendum

Initiatives/referendum Subject Participation Rate of

approval*

Rate of refusal to participate in the survey

Traffic halving (March 2000) 41.6% 21.3%

VOX sample (n= 994)

To halve road traffic within 10

years 54.6% 19.3% 57%

Solar initiative (Sept. 2000) 44.2% 32%

VOX sample (n= 1015)

Tax on non-renewable fuel.

Use: solar energy promotion and

energy conservation 55.7% 35.2% n.a.

Energy conservation package (Sept. 2000) 44.2% 47%

VOX sample (n= 1015)

Tax on non-renewable fuel Use: promotion of energy conservation and subsidies for

hydroelectric power plants 55.7% 37.8% n.a.

Green tax reform I (Sept. 2000) 44.2% 45%

VOX sample (n= 1015)

Tax on non-renewable fuel.

Use : lower social contribution 55.7% 28.7% n.a.

Green tax reform II (December 2001) 37.4% 22.9%

VOX sample (n= 998)

Tax on non-renewable fuel and electricity

Use : lower social contribution 50.7% 17.1% 61%

Electricity Market Liberalization (Sept.

2002) 44.9 % 47.4 %

VOX sample (n= 1003)

Introduction of competition in the

electricity market 60.3% 34.1% 68%

Nuclear ban (May 2004) 50 % 33.7 %

nuclear power plants construction 59.0% 40.7% 66%

Motorless Sunday (May 2004) 50 % 37.6 %

VOX sample (n= 2004)

Interdiction of road traffic during 4

Sundays each year 59.0% 39.2% 66%

UNO membership (March 2002) 54.6% 54.6%

VOX sample (n=1010)

reserve of Swiss National Bank 60.3% 39.3% 68%

* for the VOX samples, abstentions are considered a negative vote

24 People from 18 to 65 years old have to vote except if they present a valid excuse during the 3 days following the referendum or election. A penalty of 3 Swiss francs (around 1.9 euros) has to be paid by non-participants.

Most initiatives have been unsuccessful from the environmental point of view. Initiatives aiming at banning nuclear power plants, taxing non-renewable fuels or reducing traffic have not gained the popular and the cantons’ majority²⁵. The refusal of the “electricity market liberalization” referendum is therefore exceptional since it may be considered, as far as we adopted some ecological arguments, as a vote favorable to the environment.

The rate of approval diverges between the effective vote and the VOX samples. In the case of the green tax reform I, the rate of approval in the VOX sample appears even to be 15 % lower. However, when observations are weighted in order to make the sub-sample of surveyed citizens representative of the population according to the socio-demographic characteristics²⁶, the proportions of approvals are quite identical.

One final interesting feature of the VOX surveys is that they also contain information on people who did not participate in the vote. Only observing voters may induce the presence of a selection bias in the estimates (see above 4.3.1). Thus, just as in Thalmann’s study (2004), we shall learn not only about who votes in favor of environmental initiatives and referendum but also on who participates in such ballots. In our empirical strategy, we will therefore simultaneously model the participation and the voting decisions²⁷ and be able to extrapolate the result of the pool as if everyone in the sample had participated. Unfortunately, as a large proportion of the citizens interviewed refused to participate in the surveys (on average 60 %), it will not be possible to extrapolate the results of the whole population since we cannot control if the participant in the survey shares the unobservable characteristics of the non-participants. Another drawback of the VOX data sets is that they obviously concern only a single democratic jurisdiction while the EKC theory would rather imply the analysis of the variation of the demand for environmental quality throughout developing and developed countries.

One should also take into consideration that the majority of the Swiss parliament and Executive Committee has considered the green tax reform II and the halving traffic initiative as unrealistic. These objects remain very imprecise since the voters were not able to know how such objectives would be implemented and the cost they would generate. Both initiatives were doomed to failure, as the voters, even the more informed and educated, could not correctly evaluate the consequences of an acceptance of those ballot propositions. The low rate of approval they got confirms that many voters, even if they may be concerned by environmental quality, decide to penalize the vagueness of those initiatives.

Finally, it is frequent that several initiatives are submitted to citizens’ approval on the same voting session in Switzerland. Overall, the eleven initiatives we examine come from six voting sessions²⁸. One initiative may thus attract more attention and political debate and consequently influence the participation (and, thus, the voting decision) on other objects judged less important. We may therefore expect that the results on initiatives held on the same voting day share larger similarities.

25 In order to succeed, the double majority of the Swiss states (cantons) and people is required in Switzerland.

26 The VOX studies (see Milic et al., 2000; Ballmer-Cao et al., 2000; Zürcher et al., 2001; Mahnig et al., 2002; Hirter et al., 2002;

Blaser et al., 2003) provide the weight and compute the % of YES and NO votes of each sample.

27 Thalmann (2004) and De Melo et al. (2004), who also use the VOX Surveys, used an identical model.

28 The voting session of May 2004 includes for example eight objects covering various subjects.

4.3 The econometric model