Despite considerable scholarly interest and recent advances in research, our knowledge of how jurisdiction size influences political efficacy remains fragmentary. This study contributes to the literature by exploring the linkage between the size of county jurisdiction, in terms of county population, and external political efficacy in China. Results from simple regressions indicate that, on average, external political efficacy declines with the size of county jurisdiction. Further analysis via a quantile perspective provides evidence that the influence of size upon external political efficacy varies across different parts of the outcome distribution. We observe a negative and pronounced effect in the lower tail of the distribution, but a positive and trivial effect in the upper tail. Our study highlights citizens’ divergent perceptions about the size of political jurisdiction and offers new insights into the research on jurisdictional design and political efficacy.
AartsKSemetkoH (2003) The Divided Electorate: Media Use and Political Involvement. The Journal of Politics65 (3): 759–784.
2.
AishAMJöreskogKG (1990) A Panel Model for Political Efficacy and Responsiveness: An Application of LISREL 7 with Weighted Least Squares. Quality and Quantity24 (4): 405–426.
3.
AlmondGAVerbaS (1963) The Civic Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
AndersonMR (2010) Community Psychology, Political Efficacy, and Trust. Political Psychology31 (1): 59–84.
5.
BalchGI (1974) Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept Sense of Political Efficacy. Political Methodology1 (2): 1–43.
6.
BjørnskovCDreheAFischerJ (2008) On Decentralization and Life Satisfaction. Economics Letters99: 147–151.
7.
BlecherMJShueV (1996) Tethered Deer: Government and Economy in a Chinese County. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
BorckR (2002) Jurisdiction Size, Political Participation, and the Allocation of Resources. Public Choice113 (3): 251–263.
9.
CampbellAGurinGMillerWE (1954) The Voter Decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
10.
ChamberlainA (2012) A Time-Series Analysis of External Efficacy. Public Opinion Quarterly76 (1): 117–130.
11.
ChamberlainA (2013) The (Dis)Connection Between Political Culture and External Efficacy. American Politics Research41 (5): 761–782.
12.
ChanKW (2010) The Household Registration System and Migrant Labor in China: Notes on a Debate. Population and Development Review36 (2): 357–364.
13.
CharronNFernández-AlbertosJLapuenteV (2014) Size, Political Representation and Governance. In: Martinez-VazquezJ (ed.) Challenge of Local Government Size: Theoretical Perspectives, International Experience and Policy Reform. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp.55–82.
14.
ChenJPanJXuY (2016) Sources of Authoritarian Responsiveness: A field Experiment in China. American Journal of Political Science60 (2): 383–400.
15.
ChungJHLamTC (2004) China’s ‘City System’ in Flux: Explaining Post-Mao Administrative Changes. The China Quarterly180: 945–964.
16.
CraigSCMaggiottoMA (1982) Measuring Political Efficacy. Political Methodology8 (3): 85–109.
17.
CraigSCNiemiRGSilverGE (1990) Political Efficacy and Trust: A Report on the NES Pilot Study Items. Political Behavior12 (3): 289–314.
18.
DahlRATufteER (1973) Size and Democracy. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
DentersB (2002) Size and Political Trust: Evidence from Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy20 (6): 793–812.
20.
ErgencC (2014) Political efficacy through Deliberative Participation in Urban China: A Case Study on Public Hearings. Journal of Chinese Political Science19 (2): 191–213.
21.
EsaiassonPWlezienC (2016) Advances in the Study of Democratic Responsiveness: An Introduction. Comparative Political Studies. Epub ahead of print 15January. DOI: 10.1177/0010414016633226
22.
EsaiassonPGilljamMPerssonM (2013) Communicative Responsiveness and Other Central Concepts in Between-election Democracy. In: EsaiassonPNarudH (eds) Between-election Democracy: The Representative Relationship after Election Day. Colchester: ECPR Press, pp.15–33.
23.
EsaiassonPKöllnAKTurperS (2015) External Efficacy and Perceived Responsiveness – Similar but Distinct Concepts. International Journal of Public Opinion Research27 (3): 432–445.
24.
FinifterAWAbramsonPR (1975) City Size and Feelings of Political Competence. The Public Opinion Quarterly39 (2): 189–198.
25.
FinkelSE (1985) Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy: A Panel Analysis. American Journal of Political Science29 (4): 891–913.
26.
FowlerFJ (1974) Citizen Attitudes toward Local Government, Services, and Taxes. New York: Ballinger.
27.
GilensM (2005) Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly69 (5): 778–796.
28.
GlaeserELKolkoJSaizA (2001) Consumer City. Journal of Economic Geography1 (1): 27–50.
29.
GrayVLoweryD (2000) The Population Ecology of Interest Representation: Lobbying Communities in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
30.
HajnalZTrounstineJ (2014) Identifying and Understanding Perceived Inequities in Local Politics. Political Research Quarterly67 (1): 56–70.
31.
HayesBCBeanCS (1993) Political Efficacy – A Comparative Study of the United States, West Germany, Great Britain and Australia. European Journal of Political Research23 (3): 261–280.
32.
KarpJABanducciSA (2008) Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour. British Journal of Political Science38 (2): 311–334.
33.
KeatingM (1995) Size, Efficiency and Democracy: Consolidation, Fragmentation and Public Choice. In: JudgeDStokerGWolmanH (eds) Theories of Urban Politics. London: SAGE Publications, pp.117–134.
34.
KelleherCALoweryD (2004) Political Participation and Metropolitan Institutional Contexts. Urban Affairs Review39 (6): 720–757.
35.
KelleherCALoweryD (2009) Central City Size, Metropolitan Institutions and Political Participation. British Journal of Political Science39 (1): 59–92.
36.
KenskiKStroudN (2006) Connections between Internet Use and Political Efficacy, Knowledge, and Participation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media50 (2): 173–192.
37.
KingGPanJRobertsME (2013) How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression. American Political Science Review107 (2): 326–343.
LamareJRLamareJW (2015) Electoral Reform, Situational Forces, and Political Confidence: Results from a Multi-Wave Panel. Electoral Studies40: 361–371.
40.
LassenDDSerritzlewS (2011) Jurisdiction Size and Local Democracy: Evidence on Internal Political Efficacy from Large-scale Municipal Reform. American Political Science Review105 (2): 238–258.
41.
LeeFLF (2006) Collective Efficacy, Support for Democratization, and Political Participation in Hong Kong. International Journal of Public Opinion Research18 (3): 297–317.
42.
MaLJ (2005) Urban Administrative Restructuring, Changing Scale Relations and Local Economic Development in China. Political Geography24 (4): 477–497.
43.
MachadoJAFSilvaJMCS (2005) Quantiles for Counts. Journal of the American Statistical Association100 (472): 1226–1237.
44.
ManionM (2014) Authoritarian Parochialism: Local Congressional Representation in China. The China Quarterly218: 311–338.
45.
MinznerCF (2006) Xinfang: An Alternative to Formal Chinese Legal Institutions. Stanford Journal of International Law42 (2): 103–179.
46.
MondakJJ (2010) Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
MondakJJHalperinKD (2008) A Framework for the Study of Personality and Political Behaviour. British Journal of Political Science38 (2): 335–362.
48.
MorrellME (2003) Survey and Experimental Evidence for a Reliable and Valid Measure of Internal Political Efficacy. The Public Opinion Quarterly67 (4): 589–602.
49.
MorrellME (2005) Deliberation, Democratic Decision-Making and Internal Political Efficacy. Political Behavior27 (1): 49–69.
50.
MouritzenPE (1989) City Size and Citizens’ Satisfaction: Two Competing Theories Revisited. European Journal of Political Research17 (6): 661–688.
51.
National Bureau of Statistics of China (2014) Statistical Yearbook 2013. Beijing, China: China Statistics Press.
52.
NewtonK (1982) Is Small Really So Beautiful? Is Big Really So Ugly? Size, Effectiveness, and Democracy in Local Government. Political Studies30 (2): 190–206.
53.
NorrisM (2015) The Economic Roots of External Efficacy: Assessing the Relationship between External Political Efficacy and Income Inequality. Canadian Journal of Political Science48 (4): 791–813.
54.
OliverJE (2000) City Size and Civic Involvement in Metropolitan America. The American Political Science Review94 (2): 361–373.
55.
PattieCJohnstonR (1998) Voter Turnout at the British General Election of 1992: Rational Choice, Social Standing or Political Efficacy?European Journal of Political Research33 (2): 263–283.
56.
PollockPHIII (1983) The Participatory Consequences of Internal and External Political Efficacy: A Research Note. The Western Political Quarterly36 (3): 400–409.
57.
PrimoDMMilyoJ (2006) Campaign Finance Laws and Political Efficacy: Evidence from the States. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy5 (1): 23–39.
SchneiderFMOttoLAlingsDet al. (2014) Measuring Traits and States in Public Opinion Research: A Latent State-Trait Analysis of Political Efficacy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research26 (2): 202–223.
60.
SchumakerPDGetterRW (1977) Responsiveness Bias in 51 American Communities. American Journal of Political Science21 (2): 247–281.
61.
Stenner-DayKFischleM (1992) The Effects of Political Participation on Political Efficacy: A Simultaneous Equations Model. Politics27 (2): 282–305.
62.
SuZMengT (2016) Selective Responsiveness: Online Public Demands and Government Responsiveness in Authoritarian China. Social Science Research59: 52–67.
63.
TaylorJERozelleSBrauwAD (2003) Migration and Incomes in Source Communities: A New Economics of Migration Perspective from China. Economic Development and Cultural Change52 (1): 75–101.
64.
Van der EijkCRoseJ (2015) Risky Business: Factor Analysis of Survey Data–Assessing the Probability of Incorrect Dimensionalisation. PLoS ONE10 (3): e0118900.
65.
VerbaSNieNHKimJO (1978) Participation and Political Equality: A Seven-Nation Comparison. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
66.
WinkelmannR (2006) Reforming Health Care: Evidence from Quantile Regressions for Counts. Journal of Health Economics25 (1): 131–145.
