Whether elected representatives should be responsive to the wishes of the majority of citizens has been an issue often discussed from a normative perspective. This article shifts the focus by looking at the determinants of support for responsiveness among citizens. Its core argument is that attitudes toward responsiveness vary systematically depending on the policy gains an individual can expect from a government that is responsive to the preferences of the majority of citizens. The analysis of data from the European Social Survey and 21 countries confirms these expectations. Individuals whose ideological stances are reflected well by the incumbent government are less favorable to the idea that governments should be responsive to the preferences of the majority, while one’s proximity to the ideological location of the median citizen increases the odds of support for majority responsiveness. Our findings are stable across a large variety of European democracies.
AndersonC. J.GuilloryC. A. (1997). Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review, 91, 66-81.
2.
ArnoldC.FranklinM. N. (2012). Introduction: Issue congruence and political responsiveness. West European Politics, 35, 1217-1225.
3.
BakkerR.De VriesC.EdwardsE.HoogheL.JollyS.MarksG.. . . VachudovaM. A. (2015). Measuring party positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2010. Party Politics, 21, 143-152.
4.
BarkerD. C.CarmanC. J. (2012). Representing Red and Blue: How the culture wars change the way citizens speak and politicians listen. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
BelchiorA. M. (2013). Explaining left–right party congruence across European party systems a test of micro-, meso-, and macro-level models. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 352-386.
6.
BelchiorA. M.TsatsanisE.TeixeiraC. P. (2015). Representation in times of crisis: Deputy–voter congruence on views of representation in Portugal. International Political Science Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0192512114562295
7.
BengtssonÅ.WassH. (2010). Styles of political representation: What do voters expect?Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 20, 55-81.
8.
BengtssonÅ.WassH. (2011). The representative roles of MPs: A citizen perspective. Scandinavian Political Studies, 34, 143-167.
9.
BernauerJ.MunzertS. (2014). Loyal to the Game? Strategic policy representation in mixed electoral systems. Representation, 50, 83-97.
10.
BohleD. (2014). Responsible government and capitalism’s cycles. West European Politics, 37, 288-308.
11.
BowlerS. (2017). Trustees, delegates, and responsiveness in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 50, 766-793. doi:10.1177/0010414015626447
12.
BowlerS.DonovanT.KarpJ. A. (2006). Why politicians like electoral institutions: Self-interest, values, or ideology?The Journal of Politics, 68, 434-446.
13.
BrooksC.ManzaJ. (2006). Social policy responsiveness in developed democracies. American Sociological Review, 71, 474-494.
14.
BursteinP. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 29-40.
15.
CarmanC. J. (2006). Public preferences for parliamentary representation in the UK: An overlooked link?Political Studies, 54, 103-122.
16.
CarmanC. J. (2007). Assessing preferences for political representation in the US. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 17, 1-19.
17.
ChongD. (2013). Degrees of rationality in politics. In HuddyL.SearsD. O.LevyJ. S. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 96-129). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
CoxN. J. (2009). IQUANTILE: Stata module to calculate interpolated quantiles (Statistical Software Components S456992, Boston College Department of Economics). Retrieved from IDEA.
19.
DahlR. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20.
EsaiassonP.GilljamM.PerssonM. (2013). Communicative responsiveness and other central concepts in between-election democracy. In EsaiassonP.NarudH. M. (Eds.), Between-election democracy: The representative relationship after election day (pp. 15-33). Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.
21.
EsaiassonP.GilljamM.PerssonM. (2017). Responsiveness beyond policy satisfaction - Does it matter to citizens?Comparative Political Studies, 50, 739-765. doi:10.1177/0010414015626445
22.
EsaiassonP.NarudH. M. (2013). Between-election democracy: An Introductory Note. In EsaiassonP.NarudH. M. (Eds.), Between-election democracy: The representative relationship after election day (pp. 1-14). Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.
23.
EzrowL.HellwigT. (2014). Responding to voters or responding to markets? Political parties and public opinion in an era of globalization. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 816-827.
24.
JackmanS. (2009). Bayesian analysis for the social sciences. New York, NY: John Wiley.
25.
KingA. (1997). Running scared: Why America’s politicians campaign too much and Govern too little. New York, NY: Free Press.
26.
MairP. (2009). Representative versus responsible government (MPIFG working paper). Cologne, Germany: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
27.
ManinB.PrzeworskiA.StokesS. C. (1999). Elections and representation. In PrzeworskiA.StokesS. C.ManinB. (Eds.), Democracy, accountability, and representation (pp. 29-54). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
MansbridgeJ. (1999). Should Blacks represent Blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes.”The Journal of Politics, 61, 628-657.
29.
MansbridgeJ. (2009). A “selection model” of political representation. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 17, 369-398.
30.
Méndez-LagoM.MartínezA. (2002). Political representation in Spain: An empirical analysis of the perception of citizens and MPs. Journal of Legislative Studies, 8, 63-90.
31.
ÖnnudóttirE. H. (2014). Policy congruence and style of representation: Party voters and political parties. West European Politics, 37, 538-563.
32.
PageB. I. (2002). The semi-sovereign public. In ManzaJ.CookF. L.PageB. I. (Eds.), Navigating public opinion (pp. 325-344). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33.
PitkinH. F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
PowellG. B. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
PowellG. B. (2009). The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative measures, data, and time periods on the effects of election rules. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 1475-1497.
36.
RehfeldA. (2009). Representation rethought: On trustees, delegates and gyroscopes in the study of political representation and democracy. American Political Science Review, 103, 214-230.
37.
RoseR. (2013). Representing Europeans: A pragmatic approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38.
Schwindt-BayerL. A.MishlerW. (2005). An integrated model of women’s representation. Journal of Politics, 67, 407-428.
39.
SearsD. O.LauR. R.TylerT. R.AllenH. M. (1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. American Political Science Review, 74, 670-684.
40.
ShapiroR. Y. (2011). Public opinion and American democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 982-1017.
41.
SorokaS. N.WlezienC. (2010). Degrees of democracy: Politics, public opinion, and policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
SteckerC.TausendpfundM. (2015). Governments, multi-dimensional ideological congruence and satisfaction with democracy. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the European Political Science Association, Vienna, June 25-27, 2015.
43.
StegmuellerD. (2013). How many countries for multilevel modeling? A comparison of frequentist and Bayesian approaches. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 748-761.
44.
ThomassenJ. (1994). Empirical research into political representation: Failing democracy or failing models. In JenningsM. K.MannT. E. (Eds.), Elections at home and abroad: Essays in honor of Warren E. Miller (pp. 237-264). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
45.
WlezienC. (1995). The public as thermostat: Dynamics of preferences for spending. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 981-1000.
46.
WlezienC. (2004). Patterns of representation: Dynamics of public preferences and policy. Journal of Politics, 66, 1-24.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
