On Ad-Hominem Assertion and Scientific Discourse in the Study of Sociotropic and Egocentric Motivations of Political Attitudes and Behaviour

Introduction In Scandinavian Political Studies (1994,83-88), Professors Peter Nannestad and Martin Paldam (hereafter “NF”’) reviewed my little monograph -just an extended essay really titled Solidarity or Egoism? The Economics of Sociotropic and Egocentric Influences on Political Behaviour: Denmark in International and Theoretical Perspective (Aarhus University Press for the Rockwool Foundation Research Unit, 1993). Because I think NP’s review dwells too heavily on allegations about my (i) pro welfare state “value biases” (pp. 83, 84, 87, 88), (ii) “grudging acceptance” of proper scientific terminology (pp. 83, 84), and (iii) application of “double standards” in support of politically preferred conclusions (pp. 83, 86, 87), and too little on the substance of my essay and the larger scientific issues it addresses, the editors of SPS have kindly given me this opportunity to redress the imbalance between ad hominem assertion and scientific discourse populating NP’s remarks. NP’s review begins by describing my monograph as “a strange little booklet” because of the biases just mentioned, and also because it focused so much on their research on Denmark “which is not yet available in a find version” (NP 1994, 83). It is appropriate, therefore, that I provide a few words about the origins of my efforts. My work was commissioned by the Director of Research at the Rockwool Foundation, who in turn was responding to an energetic request from Professor Paldam that I be recruited to write an extended essay placing NP’s empirical research on sociotropic versus egotropic political behaviour in Denmark in international and theoretical perspective. The initial NP-Rockwool Foundation plan was to issue a small volume on the topic centred on NP’s work, with my essay