Research dealing with citizens’ preferences for different conceptions of democracy has grown and diversified greatly. This has resulted in a highly fragmented field in which empirical evidence cannot easily be integrated into a consistent larger picture. This systematic review takes stock of this research to uncover the roots of existing inconsistencies and to show how future research can avoid them. It maps three decades of research regarding conceptualizations and measurement approaches that have been chosen to study citizens’ preferences for democracy. By systematically carving out the variation in the chosen approaches, the review shows why existing research can hardly add up to a clear diagnosis regarding what kind of democracy citizens prefer. A critical discussion based on this review highlights that cumulative research will require a stronger conceptual and methodological integration between different strands in the literature.
AckermannM.AckermannK.FreitagM. (2019). The personality of stealth democrats: How traits shape attitudes towards expert-based governments. West European Politics, 42(3), 573–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2018.1530494.
2.
AkkermanA.MuddeC.ZasloveA. (2014). How populist are the people? Measuring populist attitudes in voters. Comparative Political Studies, 47(9), 1324–1353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013512600.
3.
AllenN.BirchS. (2015). Process preferences and British public opinion: Citizens’ judgements about government in an era of anti-politics. Political Studies, 63(2), 390–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12110.
4.
AlmondG. A.VerbaS. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Sage Publications.
AtkinsonM. M.WhiteS.BerdahlL.McGraneD. (2016). Are Canadians stealth democrats? An American idea comes north. American Review of Canadian Studies, 46(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/02722011.2016.1154880.
7.
BarrenecheaR.CastilloI. (2019). The many roads to Rome: Family resemblance concepts in the social sciences. Quality & Quantity, 53(1), 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0732-7.
8.
BaviskarS.MaloneM. F. T. (2004). What democracy means to citizens—and why it matters. Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Del Caribe/European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 76(2), 3–23. JSTORhttps://doi.org/10.18352/erlacs.9682.
9.
BedockC.PanelS. (2017). Conceptions of democracy, political representation and socio-economic well-being: Explaining how French citizens assess the degree of democracy of their regime. French Politics, 15(4), 389–417. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-017-0043-8.
10.
BengtssonÅ. (2012). Citizens’ perceptions of political processes. A critical evaluation of preference consistency and survey items. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 70(Extra_2), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2012.01.29.
11.
BengtssonÅ.ChristensenH. (2016). Ideals and actions: Do citizens’ patterns of political participation correspond to their conceptions of democracy?Government and Opposition, 51(2), 234–260. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2014.29.
12.
BengtssonÅ.MattilaM. (2009). Direct democracy and its critics: Support for direct democracy and ‘stealth’ democracy in Finland. West European Politics, 32(5), 1031–1048. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380903065256.
13.
BertsouE.PastorellaG. (2017). Technocratic attitudes: A citizens’ perspective of expert decision-making. West European Politics, 40(2), 430–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2016.1242046.
14.
BowlerS.DenemarkD.DonovanT.McDonnellD. (2017). Right-wing populist party supporters: Dissatisfied but not direct democrats. European Journal of Political Research, 56(1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12166.
15.
BowlerS.DonovanT.KarpJ. A. (2007). Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies. Political Research Quarterly, 60(3), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907304108.
16.
BrattonM.MattesR. B.Gyimah-BoadiE. (2005). Public opinion, democracy, and market reform in Africa. Cambridge University Press.
17.
CanacheD. (2012a). Citizens’ conceptualizations of democracy: Structural complexity, substantive content, and political significance. Comparative Political Studies, 45(9), 1132–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414011434009.
18.
CanacheD. (2012b). The meanings of democracy in Venezuela: Citizen perceptions and structural change. Latin American Politics and Society, 54(3), 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2012.00166.x.
19.
CanacheD.MondakJ. J.SeligsonM. A. (2001). Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(4), 506–528. https://doi.org/10.1086/323576.
20.
CarlinR. E. (2018). Sorting out support for democracy: A Q-method study: Q-sorting democratic support. Political Psychology, 39(2), 399–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12409.
21.
CarlinR. E.SingerM. M. (2011). Support for polyarchy in the Americas. Comparative Political Studies, 44(11), 1500–1526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414011407471.
22.
CarnaghanE. (2011). The difficulty of measuring support for democracy in a changing society: Evidence from Russia. Democratization, 18(3), 682–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2011.563113.
23.
Castanho SilvaB.AndreadisI.AnduizaE.BlanušaN.CortiY. M.DelfinoG.RicoG.Ruth-LovellS. P.SpruytB.SteenbergenM.LittvayL. (2019). Public opinion surveys: A new scale. In HawkinsK. A.CarlinR. E.LittvayL.Rovira KaltwasserC. (Eds.), The ideational approach to populism: Concept, theory, and analysis (pp. 150–177). Routledge.
24.
Castanho SilvaB.VegettiF.LittvayL. (2017). The elite is up to something: Exploring the relation between populism and belief in conspiracy theories. Swiss Political Science Review, 23(4), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12270.
25.
ChoY. (2015). How well are global citizenries informed about democracy? Ascertaining the breadth and distribution of their democratic enlightenment and its sources. Political Studies, 63(1), 240–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12088.
26.
ChuY.-h.DiamondL.NathanA. J.ShinD. C. (2008). Introduction: Comparative perspectives on democratic legitimacy in East Asia. In ChuY.DiamondL. J.NathanA. J.ShinD. C. (Eds.), How East Asians view democracy (pp. 1–38). Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/chu-14534-003.
DacombeR. (2018). Systematic reviews in political science: What can the approach contribute to political research?Political Studies Review, 16(2), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929916680641.
29.
DahlR. A. (2000). On democracy. Yale University Press.
30.
DaltonR. J.BurklinW. P.DrummondA. (2001). Public opinion and direct democracy. Journal of Democracy, 12(4), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2001.0066.
31.
DaltonR. J.JouW.ShinD. C. (2007). Understanding democracy: data from unlikely places. Journal of Democracy, 18(4), 142–156.
DenyerD.TranfieldD. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In BuchananD.BrymanA. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689). Sage.
DoorenspleetR. (2015). Where are the people? A call for people-centred concepts and measurements of democracy. Government and Opposition, 50(3), 469–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2015.10.
36.
DyckJ. J.BaldassareM. (2009). Process preferences and voting in direct democratic elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(3), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp027.
37.
EastonD. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. Wiley.
38.
EvansM.StokerG. (2016). Political participation in Australia: Contingency in the behaviour and attitudes of citizens. Australian Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2015.1123672.
39.
FatkeM. (2019). The personality of populists: How the big five traits relate to populist attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.018.
40.
Fernández-MartínezJ. L.FontJ. (2018). The devil is in the detail: What do citizens mean when they support stealth or participatory democracy?. Politics, 38(4), 458–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395717741799.
FontJ.WojcieszakM.NavarroC. J. (2015). Participation, representation and expertise: Citizen preferences for political decision-making processes. Political Studies, 63(1_suppl), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12191.
43.
FuchsD.RollerE. (2006). Learned democracy? Support of democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. International Journal of Sociology, 36(3), 70–96. https://doi.org/10.2753/IJS0020-7659360303.
44.
GherghinaS.GeisselB. (2017). Linking democratic preferences and political participation: Evidence from Germany. Political Studies, 65(1_suppl), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321716672224.
45.
GibsonJ. L. (1996). Political and economic markets: Changes in the connections between attitudes toward political democracy and a market economy within the mass culture of Russia and Ukraine. The Journal of Politics, 58(4), 954–984. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960145.
46.
GibsonJ. L.DuchR. M.TedinK. L. (1992). Democratic values and the transformation of the Soviet Union. The Journal of Politics, 54(2), 329–371. https://doi.org/10.2307/2132030.
47.
GoertzG. (2020). Social science concepts and measurement (New and completely revised edition). Princeton University Press.
48.
GrahamM. H.SvolikM. W. (2020). Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000052.
49.
HeyvaertM.HannesK.OnghenaP. (2017). Using mixed methods research synthesis for literature reviews. SAGE.
50.
HibbingJ. R.Theiss-MorseE. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge University Press.
51.
InglehartR. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press.
52.
JacobsK.AkkermanA.ZasloveA. (2018). The voice of populist people? Referendum preferences, practices and populist attitudes. Acta Politica, 53(4), 517–541. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-018-0105-1.
Kiewiet de JongeC. P. (2016). Should researchers abandon questions about “Democracy”?: Evidence from Latin America. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(3), 694–716. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw008.
55.
KirschH.WelzelC. (2019). Democracy misunderstood: Authoritarian notions of democracy around the globe. Social Forces, 98(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy114.
56.
KönigP. D.SiewertM. B.AckermannK. (2021). Replication data for: Conceptualizing and measuring citizens’ preferences for democracy. University of Minnesota. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LFH4H8.
57.
KornbergA.ClarkeH. D. (1994). Beliefs about democracy and satisfaction with democratic government: The Canadian case. Political Research Quarterly, 47(3), 537–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299404700301.
58.
KriesiH.SarisW.MoncagattaP. (2016). The structure of Europeans’ views of democracy. In FerrínM.KriesiH. (Eds.), How Europeans view and evaluate democracy (pp. 64–89). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198766902.003.0004.
LandwehrC.SteinerN. D. (2017). Where democrats disagree: Citizens’ normative conceptions of democracy. Political Studies, 65(4), 786–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717715398.
61.
LavezzoloS.RamiroL. (2018). Stealth democracy and the support for new and challenger parties. European Political Science Review, 10(2), 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773917000108.
62.
LevitskyS.ZiblattD. (2018). How democracies die. Crown.
63.
LindbergS. I.CoppedgeM.GerringJ.TeorellJ. (2014). V-Dem: A new way to measure democracy. Journal of Democracy, 25(3), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2014.0040.
64.
LuJ. (2013). Democratic conceptions in East Asian societies a contextualized analysis. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 9(1), 117–145.
MillerA. H.HesliV. L.ReisingerW. M. (1997). Conceptions of democracy among mass and elite in post-Soviet societies. British Journal of Political Science, 27(2), 157–190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123497000100.
69.
MohrenbergS.HuberR. A.FreyburgT. (2019). Love at first sight? Populist attitudes and support for direct democracy. Party Politics, 27(3), 528–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068819868908.
MunckG. L.VerkuilenJ. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041400203500101.
72.
NebloM. A.EsterlingK. M.KennedyR. P.LazerD. M. J.SokheyA. E. (2010). Who wants to deliberate—and why?American Political Science Review, 104(3), 566–583. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055410000298.
73.
NorrisP. (Ed.), (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford University Press.
74.
OserJ.HoogheM. (2018). Democratic ideals and levels of political participation: The role of political and social conceptualisations of democracy. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 20(3), 711–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118768140.
75.
PetticrewM.RobertsH. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Pub.
76.
PutnamR. D.LeonardiR.NanettiR. Y. (1994). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton Univ. Press.
77.
QuarantaM. (2018). The meaning of democracy to citizens across European countries and the factors involved. Social Indicators Research, 136(3), 859–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1427-x.
RicoG.AnduizaE. (2017). Economic correlates of populist attitudes: An analysis of nine European countries in the aftermath of the great recession. Acta Politica, 54(1), 371–397. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-017-0068-7.
80.
RicoG.GuinjoanM.AnduizaE. (2017). The Emotional underpinnings of populism: How anger and fear Affect populist attitudes. Swiss Political Science Review, 23(4), 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12261.
81.
RooduijnM. (2019). State of the field: How to study populism and adjacent topics? A plea for both more and less focus. European Journal of Political Research, 58(1), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12314.
82.
Rovira KaltwasserC.Van HauwaertS. M. (2020). The populist citizen: Empirical evidence from Europe and Latin America. European Political Science Review, 12(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773919000262.
83.
SackB. C. (2016). Regime change and the convergence of democratic value orientations through socialization. Evidence from reunited Germany. Democratization, 24(3), 444–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2016.1220940.
84.
SartoriG. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958356.
85.
SchedlerA.SarsfieldR. (2007). Democrats with adjectives: Linking direct and indirect measures of democratic support. European Journal of Political Research, 46(5), 637–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00708.x.
86.
SchulzA.MüllerP.SchemerC.WirzD. S.WettsteinM.WirthW. (2018). Measuring populist attitudes on three dimensions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(2), 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw037.
87.
SeligsonM. (2000). Toward a model of democratic stability: Political culture in Central America. Estudios Interdisciplinarios de América Latina y El Caribe, 11(2), 5–29.
88.
ShinD. C.ChoY. (2010). How East Asians understand democracy: From a comparative perspective. ASIEN, 116, 21–40.
89.
SpruytB.KeppensG.Van DroogenbroeckF. (2016). Who supports populism and what attracts people to it?Political Research Quarterly, 69(2), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912916639138.
90.
TezcürG. M.AzadarmakiT.BaharM.NayebiH. (2012). Support for democracy in Iran. Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912910395326.
91.
ThomassenJ. (1995). Support for democratic values. In KlingemannH.-D.FuchsD. (Eds.), Citizens and the state (pp. 384–416). Oxford University Press.
UlbrichtT. (2018). Perceptions and conceptions of democracy: Applying thick concepts of democracy to reassess desires for democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 51(11), 1387–1440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018758751.
94.
Van HauwaertS. M.SchimpfC. H.AzevedoF. (2019a). The measurement of populist attitudes: Testing cross-national scales using item response theory. Politics, 40(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395719859306.
95.
Van HauwaertS. M.SchimpfC. H.DandoyR. (2019b). Populist demand, economic development and regional identity across nine European countries: Exploring regional patterns of variance. European Societies, 21(2), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2019.1583355.
96.
VanderMolenK. (2017). Stealth democracy revisited: Reconsidering preferences for less visible government. Political Research Quarterly, 70(3), 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917712478.
97.
WebbP. (2013). Who is willing to participate? Dissatisfied democrats, stealth democrats and populists in the United Kingdom: Who is willing to participate?European Journal of Political Research, 52(6), 747–772. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12021.
98.
WelzelC.AlvarezA. M. (2014). Enlightening people. In DaltonR. J.WelzelC. (Eds.), The civic culture transformed (pp. 59–88). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600002.007.
99.
WuttkeA.GavrasK.SchoenH. (2020). Have Europeans grown tired of democracy? New evidence from eighteen consolidated democracies, 1981–2018. British Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123420000149.
100.
WuttkeA.SchimpfC.SchoenH. (2020). When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: On the conceptualization and measurement of populist attitudes and other multidimensional constructs. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000807.
101.
ZhaiY. (2019). Popular conceptions of democracy and democratic satisfaction in China. International Political Science Review, 40(2), 246–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512118757128.
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.
