| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
191598
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Do natural disasters affect presidential approval ratings? In this study, we argue that in South Korea this relationship is conditional on regional partisan cleavages. Since partisanship induces perceptual biases among distinct social groups, we expect that (1) the president’s co-partisans will not blame their president even if the government fails to prevent or mitigate damage from natural disasters, and (2) human and economic losses from disasters, or delivery of disaster relief aid, may boost approval ratings in partisan strongholds. We test these hypotheses using South Korea’s Park Geun-hye and Moon Jae-in administrations. The results of vector auto-regressions show that regional partisanship toward the incumbent significantly influences job approval ratings in the wake of natural disasters. While public opinion in metropolitan areas was not affected by disaster losses, both presidents’ approval rose after disasters—typhoons and windstorms, in particular—struck their strongholds in the southeastern part of the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
175112
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Despite the unsuccessful outcomes of his policies on economic growth and North Korea, Moon Jae-in at midterm has received relatively high levels of job approval ratings compared to his immediate predecessors. What made it possible for him to maintain these ratings? To analyze this puzzle, we employed the three commonly noted leadership qualities—effective communication, political skill, and organizational capacity—suggested by presidential study scholars. We found that Moon Jae-in’s leadership qualities are not the compelling reason for his relatively high approval ratings. Instead, there are three alternative reasons for Moon Jae-in’s relatively high approval ratings: (a) better handling of the media; (b) collapse of the conservatives; and (c) multiple summit meetings with Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un. The latter two reasons are contextual factors, which are our theoretical contribution to the literature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
076110
|
|
|