Analysis 1

Running head: APPROVAL OF PRESIDENT’S HANDLING OF ECONOMY

Analysis of the Approval of President Bush’s Handling of Economy

Benjamin Sison

Nai Hua Wu
Data Analysis for Political Sociology Class

International Christian University

Tokyo, Japan
 Analysis 2

Introduction

Many actions of the United States undoubtedly are in the headlines all over the world.
Since it is perceived as the world’s super power, the President of the United States, George
W. Bush, certainly has a tremendous amount of influence. Thus, whenever the United States’
presidential election takes place, the world watches closely. It is imperative to many countries
that the candidate elected as the US’s President is the one that would benefit their countries.
Domestically, studies have shown that the American voters tend to vote for the presidential
candidate who would best represent their economic interest (Market & Britton, 1992).
According to Market and Britton (1992, p.1):
Over the past 2 decades, a body of literature has developed that examines the
relationship between the election success of presidential candidates and the
performance of the economy. Simply stated, the theory rests on the basic premise that
voters tend to cast their ballots in presidential elections according to their economic
interests. A separate, but related theory deals with the premise that the presidential
party in power will implement policies designed to maintain itself in power. Empirical
studies testing the hypothesis that presidential election outcomes are directly related
to the performance of the economy have shown that the party that occupies the office
of the presidency will retain the presidency when personal income is growing at a
rate that is faster than the long-term rate; the incumbent party will be voted out of
office when income is growing at a rate lower than the long-term trend.

Similar findings were found in Russia by Kim and Sidorenko-Stephenson (1996). The
authors found that the voters were affected by “individual economic experience; normative
commitment to a market; satisfaction with the market economy in practice; perception of
national economic future; satisfaction with the political system; and evaluation of the
government in benefiting the majority” (p.380). Therefore, it is vital for president incumbent
to handle the economy well and to be perceived as so. Therefore, we examine the approval of
the United States President’s handling of economy by the voters in regarded to the voters’
social characteristics and backgrounds. We specifically are interested in the following:
household income, educational level, race, party identification, subjective social class, and
gender. We used the data from the 2004 American National Election Study survey data
conducted from September 7 through November 1, 2004 by the Center for Political Studies at
the Institute for Social Research.
 Analysis 3

In order to examine the effects of independent variables against the attitudes and
perception of people towards President’s handling the economy of the country, a cross
tabulation analysis was used to explain the relationship of social background of respondent in
this issue. Cross tabulation method is basically used in this analysis since the dependent
variable has only two factor attributes. Those who did not answer or refused to answer in the
specific question were treated missing in the analysis since the number of respondents is not
significant to affect the total number of respondents who answered properly. The sample is
consisted of a new cross-section of respondents that yielded 1,212 face-to-face interviews in
the pre-election study, 1,066 of which later provided a face-to-face interview in the post-
election study.
We feel that this study is important because it may explain whether the voters approve
the President’s handling of economy based on some social characteristics of the voters. In
turn, the voters that approve George W. Bush’s handling of economy may be more likely to
vote for him. However, this is our underlining assumption. Future studies are recommended
to test our assumption whether the approval of Bush’s handling of economy directly affected
his success in reelection.

Hypotheses

Social background in the society are groupings involving differences in areas such as
power, authority, wealth, income, prestige, education, working conditions, lifestyles, and
culture. People of any one class tend to associate much more with one another than they do
with members of other classes. The decision to render judgment is often influenced by the
respondent’s social background and status in the community where they belong to and have
lived. This study seeks to understand whether a person’s social background or perceived
social background influences his/her approval of president’s handling of economy. Since
perception of a good or bad economy is rather subjective, there are many factors involved
when a person decides whether President Bush handles economy well. For instance, we feel
household income may be correlated to a person’s approval or disapproval of President’s
handling of economy. Republicans are perceived as for big businesses and the wealthy
(Woodall, 2004). Under President Bush, the Congress has cut tax for the wealthy people and
passed the registration to make it harder to bring a class lawsuit to big corporations.
Therefore, we propose that the wealthier a person is, the more he/she would approve
President’s handling of economy. Therefore, we decide to use household income since we
 Analysis 4

feel that everyone in the same household is very likely to enjoy the same privilege and
access, no matter he/she earns any income.
Hence, the following hypotheses are assumed in this study considering the dependent
and independent variables:
1. The higher the household income, the more likely the individual in the household

will approve President’s handling of economy.

2. Educational level may have an affect in the approval of President’s handling of

economy. Since income level usually increases when educational level increases,

we feel that the more education one has, the more likely he/she will approve

president’s handling of economy.

3. A person’s perception of the economy condition may be affected by the person’s

race. For example, an African American may feel differently towards the currently

economy than a Hispanic American. People of different races may differ in the

perception of the President’s handling of economy. Therefore, in regarding to

approval of President’s handling of economy, white people are more likely to

approve it, following by Hispanic Americans, and then African Americans.

4. Since President Bush represents Republican, we feel that Republicans, regarding

to whether they really feel about the economy, would be more likely to approve

President’s handling of economy. Therefore, party identification has an impact on

approval of President’s handling of economy, being Republicans should support

the President, following by Democrats.

5. Subjective social class or social status also tend to influence the decision to

approved or disapprove the President’s handling of the economy. Middle class is

more likely to approve the President’s handling of economy.

6. Men are more likely to approve President George W. Bush’s handling of economy

compared to women.
 Analysis 5

The null hypothesis in this study assumes that there is no relationship between gender,
race, party identification, social class, education, and household income in the decision of
whether to approve or disapprove President George W. Bush’s handling of economy.

Data

The data used in this study was taken from the 2004 American National Election

Study survey data conducted from September 7 through November 1, 2004. It was conducted

by the Center for Political Studies at the Institute for Social Research, under the general

direction of the Principal Investigators, Nancy Burns and Donald R. Kinder. Data collection

services were provided by the Survey Research Center (SRC)of the University of Michigan's

Institute for Social Research.

The sample is consisted of a new cross-section of respondents that yielded 1,212 face-

to-face interviews in the pre-election study, 1,066 of which later provided a face-to-face

interview in the post-election study. The study, in part, maintains and extends the core of the

NES time-series by collecting data on Americans’ basic political beliefs, allegiances, and

behaviors. It contains special instrumentation on American’s views on foreign policy, the war

on terrorism, and the Iraq War and its consequences. It extends the experiment on the

measurement of voter turnout begun in 2002, and carries expanded instrumentation on

inflation, immigration, gender politics, and gay and lesbian politics. It also includes the

Comparative Studies of Electoral System’s Module 2, which focuses on representation and

accountability.

In addition to content on electoral participation, voting behavior, and public opinion,

the 2004 NES contains questions in other areas such as media exposure, cognitive style, and

values and predispositions. Special-interest and topical content provided significant coverage

of foreign policy, including the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. In addition, the study
 Analysis 6

carried expanded instrumentation on unemployment and inflation, gender politics, and gay

and lesbian politics.

Pre-election interviews averaging 70 minutes in length were conducted September 7

through November 1, 2004. No interviewing was conducted on Election Day, November 2.

Post-election interviews averaging 65 minutes were administered November 3 through

December 20. Randomization, employed for selection of half-samples to reduce overall

interview length, and for question order within batteries, was implemented by the CAI

instrumentation. The total sample included 1,833 eligible persons and produced 1,212

interviews. In the post-election survey, 1,066 persons granted re-interviews.

Variables

There are seven variables used in this study to determine the perceptions of

Americans on how President George W. Bush handles the economy of the country. Each of

the respondents is asked several questions as described in the following dependent and

independent variables.

1. Household Income

The respondents are asked the income group that includes the income of all the

members of the family in year 2003 before taxes. The figures in the questionnaire include

salaries, wages, pension, dividends, interest and all other income derived during the previous

year. The variable is labeled and coded as following:

[01 A. None or less than $2,999]; [02 B. $3,000-$4,999]; [03 C. $5,000-$6,999];

[04 D. $7,000-$8,999]; [05 E. $9,000 -$10,999]; [06 F. $11,000-$12,999];

[07 G. $13,000-$14,999]; [08 H. $15,000-$16,999]; [09 J. $17,000-$19,999];

[10 K. $20,000-$21,999]; [11 M. $22,000-$24,999]; [12 N. $25,000-$29,999];

[13 P. $30,000-$34,999]; [14 Q. $35,000-$39,999]; [15 R. $40,000-$44,999];

 Analysis 7

[16. S. $45,000-$49,999]; [17. T. $50,000-$59,999]; [18. U. $60,000-$69,999];

[19. V. $70,000-$79,999]; [20. W. $80,000-$89,999]; [21. X. $90,000-$104,999];

[22. Y. $105,000-$119,000]; [23. Z. $120,000 and over]; [88. Don't know];

[89. Refused]; and[00. NA.].

Those 142 respondents who refused to answer (89. Refused), don’t know (88. Don’t

know) and not applicable (00. NA) are treated missing in the cross tabulation analysis. In

cross tabulation analysis, this variable is recoded to 5 categories based on the percent level of

income from [01. $2,999 None and less than] up to maximum income of [23. $120,000 and

over] as base line of percentage. The new variable is named as Income with items as follows:

[00. 0-16%]; [01. 17-35%]; [02. 36-65%]; [03. 66-89%]; and [04. 90-100% and

above]

Table 1: Presents the Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Sample.

Household income

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0-16 % 205 16.9 19.2 19.2
17-35% 302 24.9 28.2 47.4
36-65% 290 23.9 27.1 74.5
66-89% 156 12.9 14.6 89.1
90-100% above 117 9.7 10.9 100.0
Total 1070 88.3 100.0
Missing System 142 11.7
Total 1212 100.0

A total of 1,212 respondents were asked regarding their income from all sources. Of
the total respondents, 1,070 provided answers and the remaining 142 which did not provide
answers either they do not know, refused and not applicable were treated missing in the cross
tabulation analysis.
 Analysis 8

2. Respondent Educational Level

The respondents are also asked about the highest grade of school or year of college

he/she completed. The variable labels are coded as following:

[0. NA/DK no. of grades; no HS diploma];

[1. 8 grades or less & no diploma or equivalent];

[2. 9-11 grades, no further schooling];

[3. high school diploma or equivalency test];

[4. more than 12 years of schooling, no higher degree];

[5. junior or community college level degrees];

[6. BA level degrees, 17 yrs. +, no advance degree] and

[7. advance degree, including LLB].

In cross tabulation analysis, the variable is recoded and renamed as Educational Level

making it into 4 level attributes as following:

From attribute 0 to 2 =[00. Elementary]; from attribute 3 to 4= [01. High School]; from 5 to

6=[02. College]; and attribute 7=[03. Advance Degree]

Table 2: Presents the Frequency distribution of Educational Level

Education level

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Elementary 111 9.2 9.2 9.2
High School 619 51.1 51.1 60.2
College 343 28.3 28.3 88.5
Advance Degree 139 11.5 11.5 100.0
Total 1212 100.0 100.0

3. Race of Respondent

A total of 1,212 respondents are asked on what racial or ethnic group best describe

himself. This variable is coded as following:

 Analysis 9

[10. Black]; [14. Black and Hispanic];

[15. Black and White]; [20. Asian];

[23. Asian and native American];

[25. Asian and White]; [30. Native American];

[35. Native American and White];

[40. Hispanic];

[45. Hispanic and White];

[50. White, no mention of other race];

[70. other];

[88. Don’t know];

[89. Refused]

In the course of cross tabulation analysis, this variable are recoded and named as

Race having 4 new attributes as following:

From range 10 to 14= [1.0. Black]; from 40 to 45=[2.0. Hispanic]; 50= [3.0. White]; and

from range 20 to 35 and 70= [4.0. Others]; 88 and 89 were treated as missing in the analysis.

Table 3: Presents the Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Race.

Race

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Blacks 184 15.2 15.2 15.2
Hispanic 85 7.0 7.0 22.2
White 876 72.3 72.3 94.5
Others 59 4.9 4.9 99.3
Missing 8 .7 .7 100.0
Total 1212 100.0 100.0

4. Party Identification

A total of 1,212 respondents were ascertained as to their party identification and

independence by asking questions like what do they think of their self being a Republican, a

Democrat, an Independent or others. The variable is coded as following:

 Analysis 10

[0. Strong Democrat];

[1. Weak Democrat];

[2. Independent Democrat];

[3. Independent-Independent];

[4. Independent-Republican];

[5. Weak Republican];

[6. Strong Republican];

[7. Other, minor party; refused to say];

[8. Apolitical];

[9. Don’t know]

In the course of cross tabulation analysis, the variable is recoded and named as Party

having 4 attributes and other items are treated as missing in the analysis.

From range 0 to 2 = [1. Democrat]; 3= [2. Independent]; from range 4 to 6 = [3.

Republican]; [7.,8, and 9 were treated missing]

Table 4: Presents the Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Party Identification

Party Identification

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Democrat 592 48.8 49.5 49.5
Independent 118 9.7 9.9 59.4
Republican 485 40.0 40.6 100.0
Total 1195 98.6 100.0
Missing Others 5 .4
System 12 1.0
Total 17 1.4
Total 1212 100.0
 Analysis 11

5. Subjective Social Class

A total of 1,212 respondent are ask whether the respondent likely to belong to the

following class. The variable is coded as following:

[00.Lower class volunteered];

[01. Ave. working class];
[02. Working class NA if ave. or upper];
[03. Upper working class];
[04. Ave. middle class];
[05. Middle class – NA if ave. or upper].
[06. Upper middle class]
[07. Upper class Volunteered]

In the course of analysis, this variable was recoded into 4 categories as 01. Ave.

working class, 02. Upper working class, 03. Ave. middle class and 04. Upper middle class.

Item coded as 77. Other, 88.Don’t know if working or middle class, 89. Refused-neither or

doesn’t accept were treated as missing in the analysis.

Table 5: Presents the Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Subjective Social Class

Subjective Social Class: Working or Middle

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Ave. working class 435 35.9 37.3 37.3
Upper working class 96 7.9 8.2 45.6
Ave. middle class 454 37.5 39.0 84.5
Upper middle class 180 14.9 15.5 100
Total 1165 96.1 100

Missing - system 47 3.9

Total 1212 100.0

6. Gender

Respondent gender is coded as 1 for male and 2 for female. There are 1,212

respondents used as samples in this study.

 Analysis 12

Table 6: Presents the Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Gender

Respondent gender

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1. Male 566 46.7 46.7 46.7
2. Female 646 53.3 53.3 100.0
Total 1212 100.0 100.0

7. Approval of Bush Handling the Economy

The respondents were asked whether they approved or disapproved President Bush

Handling of economy. A total of 1,212 respondents were ask. 36 respondents answered they

don’t know and 2 refused to answer. These were treated as missing case in the analysis. The

variable is coded as following:

[1. Approved];

[5. Disapproved];

[8. Don’t know];

[9. Refused].

Table 7: Presents the Frequency and Percentage Distribution of this Sample

Approval of Presidents handling of economy

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1. Approve 490 40.4 41.7 41.7
5. Disapprove 684 56.4 58.3 100.0
Total 1174 96.9 100.0
Missing 8. Don't know 36 3.0
9. Refused 2 .2
Total 38 3.1
Total 1212 100.0
 Analysis 13

Analysis

The dependent variable used in this study is focused on the performance of President

George W. Bush’s handling the economy of the country. Along with his performance to

handle the economy, the respondents were asked whether they approved or disapproved how

the president decides on economic issues affecting their lives. One most important factor is

how the people perceived the economy whether it’s getting to the right direction towards

improving the economic condition of the citizen.

The independent variables used to gauge the performance of the President in handling

the economy based on their social backgrounds and their political belief or party

identification. On the social background of the respondents, the following points are taken

into considerations.

1. Household income. This is to total income of all the members of the family derive

from all sources in prior years. This variable has 23 different levels. For cross

tabulation analysis, this variable was recoded into 5 levels based on the percentile

from the lowest income level of $2,999 and the highest income level of $120,000.

2. Number of years: education level. The variable was recoded into 4 different level

category based on the number of years in schooling. The variables were coded as

00. elementary- those who has no high school diploma, 8 grades or less, and 9-11

grades with no further schooling; 01. High school- those who have at least high

school diploma and were able to complete 12 years of schooling with no higher

degree; 02. College- those who have junior or community college level degrees

and bachelor level degrees or 17 years of schooling with no advance education;

and 03. Advance degree- those who have advance education including LLB.
 Analysis 14

3. Race. This variable was recoded into 4 level category and labeled as Blacks,

Hispanics, Whites, and Others.

4. Party identification. This variable was recoded into 3 level categories and coded

as among 00. Democrat, 01. Independent and 02. Republican.

5. Social class. There were 2 categories in this variable. The variable was coded as 1.

Middle class; and 5. Working class. Those who refused to answer, don’t know

their social status, not applicable, and others were treated as missing in the

analysis since the number is not so significant to affect the analysis of the whole

sample.

6. Respondent Gender. Male are coded as 1 and female as 2.

In order to examine and determine the effects of independent variables against the

attitudes and perception of people towards President’s handling the economy of the country, a

cross tabulation analysis was used to explain the relationship of social background of

respondent in this issue. Cross tabulation method is basically used in this analysis since the

dependent variable has only two (2) factor attributes. Those who did not answer or refused to

answer in this specific question were treated missing in the analysis since the number of

respondents is not significant to affect the total number of respondents who answered

properly.

The result of cross tabulation analysis between President’s Bush handling the

economy and household income shows that the greater the income of the respondent, the

more he/she is likely to approved the President’s Bush handling of the economy of the nation

and vice versa. (The greater the income, the more he/she is likely to disapproved). 28.1% of

those with income from all sources ranging from 0-16% says they approved, 40.5% of those

with income from all sources ranging from 17-35%, 41.8% of those with income from all

sources ranging from 36-65%; 52.9% of those with income from all sources ranging from 66-
 Analysis 15

89%; 50% of those with income from all sources ranging from 90-100% and above says they

also approved. On the other hand, 71.9%, 59.5%, 58.2%, 47.1% and 50% respectively says

they disapproved Presidents Bush handling the economy.

Using Chi-square test to see the significance whether the sample is true in the

population, the Pearson Chi-Square value is 26.43 with significant value of 0.000 at 5% level.

Thus, we can say that it is statistically significant that we can reject the null hypothesis that

there is no relationship between household income against decision whether to approve or

disapprove President’s Bush handling of the economy. The strength of association in

Cramer’s V is .160, which shows some kind of association exist and approximate

significance of .000 at 5% level. Thus, we can say that there is a weak association between

household income and President Bush handling of economy. Employing the test of strength

of association in Gamma, there appears to be a negative relationship between income and

President Bush handles the economy. Gamma is -.215 and approximate significance of .000

at 5% level. Thus, we can say that the higher the income, the more he/she is likely to

approved President Bush handling of economy and vice versa.

Below is the table showing the cross tabulation analysis of household income and

President Bush handling of economy.

Table No. 8: Household Income and President’s Handling of Economy

Income Total
90-100%
0-16 % 17-35% 36-65% 66-89% above
Count 55 119Count
117 81 58 430
196 1. 294
Approve 28028.1% 40.5%
153 41.8% 116
52.9% 50.0%
1039 41.4%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
X2: 26.43*, Cramer’s V: .160
*p<0.05

The result of cross tabulation analysis on respondent educational level and President’s

Bush handling of economy shows that 29.7% in elementary level, 42.5% in high school level,
 Analysis 16

45.3% in college level and 38.4% in advance degree approved Bush handling of the

economy. On the other hand, 70.3%, 57.5%, 54.7% and 61.6% respectively says they

disapproved. In general, 41.7% says they approved and 58.3% disapproved President’s Bush

handling of economy. Employing the Chi-square test, the significance level is .036 at 5%

level. Pearson chi-square value is 8.55. Thus. We can say that it is statistically significant to

reject the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between educational level as to the

respondent decision to approve or disapprove President Bush handling of the economy. There

appears to be weak association between education and perception of respondent to approve or

disapprove the president handling the economy although it is statistically significant at .036

in Cramer’s V at .085 at 5% level.

The table below shows the cross tabulation analysis of educational level and President

Bush handling of economy.

Table No.9: Education and President’s Handling of Economy

Education Level Total

Advance
Elementary High School College Degree

Count 30 257 150 53 490

1. Approve 29.7% 42.5% 45.3% 38.4% 41.7%
Count 71 347 181 85 684
5. Disapprove 70.3% 57.5% 54.7% 61.6% 58.3%
Count total 101 604 331 138 1174
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
X2: 8.55*, Cramer’s V: .085
*p<0.05

The result of cross tabulation analysis on respondent’s race and President Bush

handling of economy shows that 12.6% of Blacks, 37.8% of Hispanics, 48.9% of Whites and

37.5% of others approved President Bush handling of economy. On the other hand, 87.4%,

62.2%, 51.1% and 62.5% respectively appears to disapproved. In general, a total of 41.9% of
 Analysis 17

the respondent irregardless of race says they approved President Bush handling of the

economy and 58.1% disapproved. The result of Chi-square test shows that it is statistically

significant having a value of 0.000 significance at 5% level. Pearson’s value of 82.21. In

Cramer’s V, there exist some strength of association although it is statistically significant at

5% level. Likewise, there is a negative association in Gamma -.441 although it is significant

at 5% level. Thus, we can reject the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between race

as to their decision to approved or disapprove President Bush handling of the economy.

Below is the table showing the analysis of race and President Bush handling of

economy.

Table No.10: Race and President Handling of Economy

Race Total
Blacks Hispanic White Others

Count 23 31 414 21 489

1. Approve 12.6% 37.8% 48.9% 37.5% 41.9%
Count 159 51 432 35 677
5. Disapprove 87.4% 62.2% 51.1% 62.5% 58.1%
Count 182 82 846 56 1166
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
X2: 82.21*, Cramer’s V: .266
*p<.05

The result of cross tabulation analysis shows that Republicans are more likely to

approved President Bush handling of the economy by 79.8%, Democrat- 10.6% and

Independent- 38.2%. On the other hand, Democrats are more likely to disapprove how

President Bush handles the economy by 89.4%, Independent – 61.8% and 20.2% among

Republicans. The result of Chi-square test shows a Pearson value of 513.96 and significance

value of .000 at 5% level. On the strength of association, there appears to be a little bit strong

association in Cramer’s V value of .665 although statistically significant having value of

.000at 5% level. Thus, we reject the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between
 Analysis 18

party identification in the decision to approved or disapproved President’s Bush handling of

economy.

The table below shows the cross tabulation of party identification and the President

handling of the economy.

Table 11: Party Identification and President Handling of Economy

Party Total
Democrat Independent Republican

Count 61 42 379 482

1. Approve 10.6% 38.2% 79.8% 41.5%
Count 515 68 96 679
5. Disapprove 89.4% 61.8% 20.2% 58.5%
Count 576 110 475 1161
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
X2: 513.96*, Cramer’s V: .665
*p<.05

The result of cross tabulation in subjective social working class and President

handling of economy shows that 32.6% of the average working class, 47.9% of the upper

working class, 44.7% of the average middle class, and 52.3% of the upper middle class

approve President Bush handling of the economy whereas 67.4% and 52.1%, 55.3%, and

47.7% respectively disapprove President Bush handling of the economy. In general, 41.6%

approved and 58.4% disapproved taking into consideration the subjective working class of

the respondent. The result of Chi-square test shows that it is statistically significant at

Pearson chi-square value of 25.42 and significance value of .000at 5% level. There seems to

be a weak association between the samples of the subjective social class and President

handling of the economy although, it is statistically significant having a value of .000 at 5%

level. Thus we can reject the null hypothesis that there is no relation as to the subjective

working class to approve or disapprove President Bush handling the economy.

 Analysis 19

The table below shows the cross tabulation analysis of subjective social class and the

President handling of the economy.

Table No. 12: Social Class and Percentage Approval/Disapproval of Economy

Social Class Total

Ave. Upper Ave.
working working middle Upper
class class class middle class
Count 137 45 197 92 471
Approve 32.6% 47.9% 44.7% 52.3% 41.6%
Count 283 49 244 84 660
Disapprove 67.4% 52.1% 55.3% 47.7% 58.4%
Count 420 94 441 176 1131
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
X2: 25.42*, Cramer’s V: .150
*p<.05

The result of cross tabulation analysis in respondent’s gender shows that men are

more likely to approve than women in President George W. Bush handles the economy. 48%

of men approved President’s Bush handling of the economy, and 39.1% do women. On the

other hand, 60.9% of women are more likely to disapprove the same as against 55.2% of men

. Pearson Chi-square value is 3.84 and significance value of .050 at 5% level. Thus, we can

reject the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between men and women in their

decision whether to approved or disapprove Bush handling of the economy.

Table No. 13: Gender and President’s Handling of Economy

Male Female Total

Approved 44.8% 39.1% 41.7%
 Analysis 20

Count 244 246 490

Disapproved 55.2% 60.9% 58.3%

Count 301 383 684

Total 100% 100% 100%

Count 545 629 1174

X2: 3.84*, Cramer’s V: .057, *p<0.05

Conclusion

Simply stated, we find that the approval of President’s handling of economy is related

to the respondent’s household income, educational level, race, party identification, subjective

social class, and gender. First, the greater the income of the respondent, the more he/she is

likely to approve the Bush’s handling of economy of the nation and vice versa: the greater the

income, the more he/she is likely to disapproved. Second, respondent’s educational level and

President’s handling of economy shows that 29.7% in elementary level, 42.5% in high school

level, 45.3% in college level and 38.4% in advance degree approved Bush handling of the

economy.

Third, respondent’s race and President Bush’s handling of economy shows that 12.6%

of Blacks, 37.8% of Hispanics, 48.9% of Whites and 37.5% of others approved President

Bush handling of economy. On the other hand, 87.4%, 62.2%, 51.1% and 62.5% respectively

appears to disapprove. Fourth, Republicans are more likely to approve President Bush’s

handling of the economy by 79.8%, Democrat- 10.6% and Independent- 38.2%. On the other

hand, Democrats are more likely to disapprove how President Bush handles the economy by

89.4%, Independent – 61.8% and 20.2% among Republicans.

Fifth, subjective social working class and President’s handling of economy shows

that 43.3% of the middle class and 30.7 % of the working class approve President Bush

handling of the economy whereas 56.7% and 69.3% respectively disapprove President Bush

handling of the economy. However, there seems to be a weak association between the
 Analysis 21

samples of social class and President’s handling of the economy although it is statistically

significant. Lastly, men are more likely to approve than women in President George W.

Bush’s handling of economy. 48% of men approved President’s Bush handling of the

economy, and 39.1% women. On the other hand, 60.9% of women are more likely to

disapprove the same as against 55.2% of men.

This study seeks to understand whether a person’s social background or perceived

social background influences his/her approval of president’s handling of economy. Since

perception of a good or bad economy is rather subjective, there are many factors involved

when a person decides whether President Bush handles economy well. After analysis, we find

that the approval of President’s handling of economy is related to the respondent’s gender,

household income, educational level, race, subjective social class, and party identification.

However, we cannot say with confidence which factor is the strongest predictor. In addition,

we can not explain whether the approval of President’s handling of economy has a strong

relationship with the election outcome. Therefore, future studies are recommended to 1)

further discuss the relationships among the variables and 2) further discuss the relationship

between the approval of President’s handling of economy and election of Presidential

election outcome.

Reference

Kim, B. & Sidorenko-Stephenson, S. (May, 1999). Economic experience and market

commitment in the 1996 Russian presidential election, Europe-Asia Studies, v. 51,

Iss. 3, 467-482.
 Analysis 22

Market, D. R. & Britton, C.R. (Summer 1992). The Political Theory of the Business Cycle

and the Economics of Presidential Elections, Arkansas Business and Economic

Review, Vol.25, Iss. 2, p. 1.

Woodall, P. (May/June, 2004). Victimizing the Victims, Multinational Monitor, Vol. 25, Iss.

5/6, 27-29.