DRAFT VERSION

Abstract: Does electoral accountability exist under democracy? Given its normative importance, this question remains central to empirical research. However, scholars do not agree on an operational definition of the dependent variable. For example, Manin et al. (1999) insist that voters reelect incumbents for good performance or remove them from office for bad performance, yet most scholars require only that voters reward or punish incumbents for good or bad performance- measured in terms of vote shares- to conclude that accountability exists. This paper specifies the extent to which the economy-votes relationship holds across the range of meanings of electoral accountability: from vote shares through changes in seats and government status to the question of incumbent-party survival in office. We offer three main findings. First, although elections are certainly blunt instruments, accountability exists across the range of potential meanings of the word. Second, political context limits both voters ’ ability to attribute responsibility and their opportunities to hold incumbents to accounts, again across all operational definitions of accountability. Yet third, the impact of political context varies as a function of the definition of accountability employed. Most importantly, we show that the impact of “clarity of responsibility ” is reversed when one moves from a “weak ” (vote or seat swings) to a “strong” definition of accountability (changes in government status or party in power). High clarity is associated with normatively good outcomes in the former, but low clarity is associated with accountability in the latter. These findings have wide implications for understanding the nature and extent of electoral accountability around the world