Direct democracy has received increasing attention in the past decades, from both the academic and political spheres. Moreover, institutions of direct democracy have also been introduced more frequently throughout the world, often with the aim of improving the democratic process. However, the impact of direct democracy on the behaviour of the citizenry in representative democracy is not yet clear. This study therefore focuses on the relationship between the institutions of direct democracy and turnout in representative elections. I expect that when institutions of direct democracy fulfil a task that is traditionally part of representative democracy, electoral participation declines (zero-sum proposition). Conversely, institutions where citizens are free to add new issues to the political arena (initiatives) would positively affect turnout (positive-sum proposition). I test my argument for a panel of democracies between 1980 and 2005, and find that some institutions of direct democracy compete with representative democracy while others complement it.
AlesinaADevleeschauwerAEasterlyW. (2003) Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth8: 155–194.
2.
AltmanD (2011) Direct Democracy Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BeckN (2008) Time-Series-Cross-Section Methods. In: BeckN (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.475–493.
4.
BeckNKatzJN (1995) What To Do (and Not To Do) with Time-Series Cross-Sectional Data in Comparative Politics. American Political Science Review89: 634–647.
5.
BimberB (2001) Information and Political Engagement in America: The Search for Effects of Information Technology at the Individual Level. Political Research Quarterly54 (1): 53–67.
6.
BlaisA (2006) What Affects Voter Turnout?Annual Review Political Science9: 111–125.
7.
BlaisADobrzynskaA (1998) Turnout in Electoral Democracies. European Journal of Political Research33: 239–261.
BrooksCManzaJ (2006) Social Policy in Developed Democracies. American Sociological Review71: 474–494.
10.
BurnsNSchlozmanKLVerbaS (2001) The Private Roots of Public Action; Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
ButlerDRanneyA (1994) Practice. In: ButlerDRanneyA (eds) Referendums in the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy. Basingstoke: Macmillan Publishers Ltd, pp.1–10.
12.
CarlinRELoveGJ (2013) What’s at Stake? A Veto-Player Theory of Voter Turnout. Electoral Studies32(4): 807–818.
13.
ConversePE (2006 [1964]) The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. Critical Review18 (1–3): 1–74.
14.
CoppedgeMGerringJ (2011) Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach. Perspectives on Politics9 (2): 247–267.
15.
DaltonRJBürklinWDrummondAJ (2001) Public Opinion and Direct Democracy. Journal of Democracy12 (4): 141–153.
16.
DaltonRJScarrowSECainBE (2003) New Forms of Democracy? Reform and Transformation of Democratic Institutions. In: CainBEDaltonRJScarrowSE (eds) Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.1–20.
17.
DaltonRJVan SickleAWeldonSA (2009) The Individual-Institutional Nexus of Protest. British Journal of Political Science40: 51–73.
18.
DoorenspleetR (2000) Reassessing the Three Waves of Democratization: Research Note. World Politics53 (3): 384–406.
19.
DreherA (2006) Does Globalization Affect Growth? Empirical Evidence from a New Index. Applied Economics38 (10): 1091–1110.
20.
FatkeM (2014) Allure or Alternative? Direct Democracy and Party Identification. Party Politics20 (2): 248–260.
21.
FranklinMN (2004) Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GallagherM (1996) Conclusion. In: GallagherMUleriPV (eds) The Referendum Experience in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.226–252.
24.
GerringJThackerSCMorenoC (2005) Centripetal Democratic Governance: A Theory and Global Inquiry. American Political Science Review99 (4): 567–581.
25.
GeysB (2006) Explaining Voter Turnout: A Review of Aggregate-Level Research. Electoral Studies25: 637–663.
26.
HugSTsebelisG (2002) Veto players and Referendums around the World. Journal of Theoretical Politics14 (4): 465–515.
27.
ImmergutEM (1990) Institutions, Veto Points, and Policy Results: A Comparative Analysis of Health Care. Journal of Public Policy10 (4): 391–416.
28.
International IDEA (ed.) (2008) Direct Democracy: The International IDEA Handbook. Stockholm: International IDEA.
29.
JackmanRW (1987) Political Institutions and Voter Turnout in the Industrial Democracies. American Political Science Review81(2): 405–424.
30.
KriesiH (2006) Role of The Political Elite in Swiss Direct-Democratic Votes. Party Politics12 (5): 599–622.
31.
KriesiH (2008) Political Mobilisation, Political Participation and the Power of the Vote. West European Politics31 (1): 147–168.
32.
KriesiHTrechselAH (2008) The Politics of Switzerland: Continuity and Change in a Consensus Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
LaaksoMTaageperaR (1979) ‘Effective’ Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies12 (1): 3–27.
34.
LijphartA (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
LipsetSMRokkanS (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press.
36.
MatsusakaJG (2005) Direct Democracy Works. The Journal of Economic Perspectives19 (2): 185–206.
37.
MeulmanJJHeiserWJ (2001) SPSS Categories 11.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
38.
MutzDC (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
PageBIShapiroRY (1983) Effects of Public Opinion on Policy. American Political Science Review77(1): 175–190.
40.
PatemanC (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
PatemanC (2012) Participatory Democracy Revisited. Perspectives on Politics10(1): 7–19.
42.
PharrSJPutnamRD (eds) (2000) Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Democracies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
PowellGBJr (1986) American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective. American Political Science Review80 (1): 17–43.
44.
ScarrowSE (2001) Direct Democracy and Institutional Change: A Comparative Investigation. Comparative Political Studies34: 653–665.
45.
ScarrowSE (2003) Making Elections More Direct? Reducing the Role of Parties in Elections. In: CainBEDaltonRJScarrowSE (eds) Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.44–58.
46.
SchumpeterJA ([1943] 1954) Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 4th edn.London: Allen & Unwin.
47.
SetäläM (1999) Referendums in Western Europe – A Wave of Direct Democracy. Scandinavian Political Studies22(4): 327–340.
48.
SmithG (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
TeorellJ (2006) Political Participation and Three Theories of Democracy: A Research Inventory and Agenda. European Journal of Political Research45: 787–810.
50.
TolbertCJMcNealRSSmithDA (2003) Enhancing Civic Engagement: The Effect of Direct Democracy on Political Participation and Knowledge. State Politics and Policy Quarterly3 (1): 23–41.
51.
TrechselAH (2007) Inclusiveness of Old and New Forms of Citizens’ Electoral Participation. Representation43 (2): 111–121.
52.
TrechselAHSciariniP (1998) Direct Democracy in Switzerland: Do Elites Matter?European Journal of Political Research33: 99–124.
53.
Van DethJW (1997) Introduction: Social Involvement and Democratic Politics. In: Van DethJ (ed.) Private Groups and Public Life: Social Participation, Voluntary Associations and Political Involvement in Representative Democracies. London: Routlegde, pp.1–23.
54.
Van DethJWElffM (2004) Politicisation, Economic Development and Political Interest in Europe. European Journal of Political Research43: 477–508.
55.
VatterA (2005) Bicameralism and Policy Performance: The Effects of Cameral Structure in Comparative Perspective. The Journal of Legislative Studies11 (2): 194–215.
56.
VatterABernauerJ (2009) The Missing Dimension of Democracy: Institutional Patterns in 25 EU Member States between 1997 and 2006. European Union Politics10(3): 335–359.
57.
VerbaSNieNH (1972) Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
58.
WarrenME (1992) Democratic Theory and Self-Transformation. American Political Science Review86 (1): 8–23.
59.
ZittelTFuchsD (eds) (2007) Participatory Democracy and Political Participation; Can Participatory Engineering Bring Citizens Back in?London: Routledge; Taylor & Francis Group.
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.
