abstract: Voters commonly respond to economic downturns by punishing incumbents. But what about the fate of the opposition? When assessing policymaker performance in tough times, do voters choose an established party with experience as head of government, or an inexperienced challenger? Research on the rise of challengers emphasizes issue opinions and elite strategies. The authors argue instead that perceptions of competence shape voter choices for incumbents, for main opposition options, and for challengers alike. Although selecting unproven challengers is risky, the authors predict that voters are more likely to take a chance when the duration of economic underperformance is long and the government’s tenure is short. Depressing the competence of dominant parties opens a window for parties that lack executive experience. A series of analyses provides evidence to support this argument. By showing that parties in opposition can be distinguished on competence grounds, the study’s findings widen the lens on how electoral accountability works.
Hellwig et al. (2026) studied this question.