Political representation is vital for democracies, and responsiveness lies at the heart of representation. Ethnic minorities’ assessments of elected representatives’ responsiveness reflect their participation in representative politics. Chinese New Zealanders are the largest Asian community in New Zealand. Based on 38 semi-structured, in-depth interviews, I explored how Chinese New Zealanders understood their relationships with elected representatives and their assessments of representatives’ responsiveness. For multiple reasons, interviewees adopted the delegate, trustee or dynamic representation models. I observed the age-based and homeland-based divergencies regarding interviewees’ preferred representation models. Interviewees of each ilk adopted different criteria to evaluate representatives’ responsiveness.
AlonsoSRuiz-RufinoR (2007) Political representation and ethnic conflict in new democracies. European Journal of Political Research46(2): 237-267. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00693.x.
2.
BanducciSADonovanTKarpJA (2004) Minority representation, empowerment, and participation. The Journal of Politics66(2): 534-556. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00163.x.
3.
BarkerDCCarmanCJ (2012) Representing Red and Blue: How the Culture Wars Change the Way Citizens Speak and Politicians Listen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BarkerFMcMillanK (2017) Factors influencing the electoral participation of Asian immigrants in New Zealand. Political Science69(2): 139-160. DOI: 10.1080/00323187.2017.1348236.
5.
BellamyRCastiglioneD (2013) Three models of democracy, political community and representation in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy20(2): 206-223. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2013.746118.
6.
BengtssonÅMattilaM (2009) Direct democracy and its critics: Support for direct democracy and ‘stealth’ democracy in Finland. West European Politics32(5): 1031-1048. DOI: 10.1080/01402380903065256.
7.
BilodeauA (2014) Is democracy the only game in town? Tension between immigrants’ democratic desires and authoritarian imprints. Democratization21(2): 359-381. DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2012.712515.
8.
BloemraadISchönwälderK (2013) Immigrant and ethnic minority representation in Europe: Conceptual challenges and theoretical approaches. West European Politics36(3): 564-579. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2013.773724.
9.
BorowiakCT (2011) Disciplining democracy: The principal–agent model of accountability. In: BorowiakCT (ed) Accountability and Democracy: The Pitfalls and Promise of Popular Control. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 53-76.
10.
BowlerS (2017) Trustees, delegates, and responsiveness in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies50(6): 766-793. DOI: 10.1177/0010414015626447.
11.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77-101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
12.
ButlerDM (2014) Representing the Advantaged: How Politicians Reinforce Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CarmanCJ (2007) Assessing preferences for political representation in the US. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties17(1): 1-19. DOI: 10.1080/13689880601132497.
DaltonRJ (2013) Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
16.
DischL (2011) Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. American Political Science Review105(1): 100-114. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055410000602.
17.
DohertyD (2013) To whom do people think representatives should respond: Their district or the country?.Public Opinion Quarterly77(1): 237-255. DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfs052.
18.
DoviS (2002) Preferable descriptive representatives: Will just any woman, black, or Latino do?.American Political Science Review96(4): 729-743. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055402000412.
19.
DoviS (2012) The Good Representative. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
FoxJShottsKW (2009) Delegates or trustees? A theory of political accountability. The Journal of Politics71(4): 1225-1237. DOI: 10.1017/s0022381609990260.
23.
GailmardS (2014) Accountability and principal–agent theory. In: BovensMGoodinRESchillemansT (eds) Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 90-105.
24.
GilardiFBraunD (eds) (2006) Delegation in Contemporary Democracies. London: Routledge.
25.
HayesMHibbingMV (2017) The symbolic benefits of descriptive and substantive representation. Political Behavior39: 31-50. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-016-9345-9.
26.
HiggsR (2017/18) Principal-agent theory and representative government. The Independent Review22(3): 479-480.
JacobsLRShapiroRY (2000) Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
JacobsSSchillemansT (2016) Media and public accountability: Typology and exploration. Policy & Politics44(1): 23-40. DOI: 10.1332/030557315X14431855320366.
32.
JiménezTR (2010) Replenished Ethnicity: Mexican Americans, Immigration, and Identity. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
33.
Le LohéM (2004) Ethnic minority participation and representation in the British electoral system. In: SaggarS (ed) Race and British Electoral Politics. London: Routledge, pp. 101-124.
34.
MansbridgeJ (2003) Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review97(4): 515-528. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055403000856.
35.
MansbridgeJ (2009) A “selection model” of political representation. Journal of Political Philosophy17(4): 369-398. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00337.x.
36.
McMillanK (2020) The intersecting electoral politics of immigration and inequality in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In: Simon-KumarRCollinsFLFriesenW (eds) Intersections of Inequality, Migration and Diversification: The Politics of Mobility in Aotearoa/New Zealand. London: Springer, pp. 87-108.
ÖhbergPNaurinE (2016) Party-constrained policy responsiveness: A survey experiment on politicians’ response to citizen-initiated contacts. British Journal of Political Science46(4): 785-797. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123415000010.
39.
ParkSJ (2006) Political participation of “Asian” New Zealanders: A case study of ethnic Chinese and Korean New Zealanders. PhD Thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Available at: https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/393.
40.
PearsonKCitrinJ (2006) The political assimilation of the fourth wave. In: LeeTRamakrishnanSKRamirezR (eds) Transforming Politics, Transforming America: The Political and Civic Incorporation of Immigrants in the United States. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, pp. 217-242.
41.
PitkinHF (1972) The Concept of Representation. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
42.
PowellJr GB (2004) The quality of democracy: The chain of responsiveness. Journal of Democracy15(4): 91-105. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2004.0070.
43.
SchildkrautDJ (2013) The complicated constituency: A study of immigrant opinions about political representation. Politics, Groups, and Identities1(1): 26-47. DOI: 10.1080/21565503.2012.757445.
44.
SorokaSNWlezienC (2010) Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
StrømK (2000) Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research37(3): 261-289. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6765.00513.
48.
TongcoMDC (2007) Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research and Applications5: 147-158. DOI: 10.17348/era.5.0.147-158.
49.
van der ZwanRLubbersMEisingaR (2019) The political representation of ethnic minorities in the Netherlands: Ethnic minority candidates and the role of party characteristics. Acta Politica54: 245-267. DOI: 10.1057/s41269-018-0085-1.
50.
YinRK (2012) Applications of Case Study Research. London: Sage Publication.
51.
ZuberCI (2015) Reserved seats, political parties, and minority representation. Ethnopolitics14(4): 390-403. DOI: 10.1080/17449057.2015.1032007.
