In their research note entitled'Is" Clarity of Responsibility" Important for Economic Voting? Revisiting Powell and Whitten's Hypothesis', Royed, Leyden and Borelli ('RLB'from here on) 1 attempt to replicate and extend analyses originally presented in a paper written by G. Bingham Powe and Guy D. Whitten ('PW'from here on). 2 They state that they'find no support for Powell and Whitten's conclusion that" clarity of responsibility" is crucial for economic voting'[italics added]. We heartily disagree with this conclusion. In this response, we show that this conclusion rests o unstable foundations. It is even contradicted by results that RLB report in their research note. They discount this evidence, however, on the basis of several questionable modelling decisions. We begin with a brief summary of RLB's findings and then contrast them with recent research in which clarity of responsibility has been shown to be an important determinant of the level o economic voting. We also demonstrate that in their statistical analyses, RLB commit a number o serious methodological mistakes that drive some of their faulty conclusions. Finally, we discuss th most serious problem with RLB's work: that, because of an atheoretical approach to the subject, they fail to make a major contribution to our understanding about why economic voting might be stronger in some political-economy contexts than in others.