Preference congruence between masses and elites lies at the heart of the study of democratic representation. In this article, substantiated by a meta-analysis of 154 studies published between 1960 and 2022, we show that the literature on mass–elite congruence has increased exponentially in the past decade. Despite the growing academic interest, the publications mainly focus on Western Europe and leave two critical blind spots. First, at the mass level, little attention has been paid to distinguishing between voters and non-voters and between independents and partisans. Second, at the elite level, presidents have been overlooked, including those studies examining presidential or semi-presidential democracies. In this article, we demonstrate the existence of two blind spots with a meta-analysis, explain their significance for political representation and test the extent to which they affect mass–elite congruence measurement. The article contributes to the comparative study of representation by illustrating how filling in these two blind spots is necessary to ensure a reliable and comprehensive assessment of mass–elite congruence.
American Political Science Association (APSA) (1950) Committee on Political Parties: Towards a More Responsible Two Party System. American Political Science Review45(2): 488–499.
2.
AndersonChristopherBeramendiPablo (2008) Income, Inequality, and Electoral Participation. In BeramendiPabloAndersonChristopher J (eds) Democracy, Inequality, and Representation: A Comparative Perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 278–311.
3.
BelchiorAna Maria (2010) Ideological Congruence Among European Political Parties. The Journal of Legislative Studies16(1): 121–142.
4.
BorgesAndréRibeiroPedro Floriano (2023) Presidents, Prime Ministers and Legislative Behaviour: The conditional effect of presidential legislative powers on party unity. Government and Opposition58(2): 227–248.
5.
BrandenburgHeinzJohnsRobert (2014) The Declining Representativeness of the British Party System, and Why It Matters. Political Studies62(4): 704–725.
6.
BrumatLeizaEspinozaMarcia Vera (2023) Actors, Ideas, and International Influence: Understanding migration policy change in South America. International Migration Review. Online First. doi:10.1177/01979183221142776
7.
BulmerElliot (2017) Presidential Legislative Powers. Stockholm, Sweden: IDEA.
8.
CohenJeffrey (1999) Presidential Responsiveness and Public Policy-Making: The Publics and the Policies That Presidents Choose. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
9.
ConversePhilip (1964) The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In ApterDavid E (ed.) Ideology and Its Discontent. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 206–261.
10.
ConversePhilipPierceRoy (1986) Political Representation in France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
CostelloRory (2017) The Ideological Space in Irish Politics: Comparing voters and parties. Irish Political Studies32(3): 404–431.
12.
CostelloRoryThomassenJacquesRosemaMartin (2012) European Parliament Elections and Political Representation: Policy congruence between voters and parties. West European Politics35(6): 1226–1248.
13.
CostelloRoryToshkovDimiterBosBarendKrouwelAndré (2021) Congruence Between Voters and Parties: The role of party-level issue salience. European Journal of Political Research60(1): 92–113.
14.
DahlRobert (1971) Polyarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
DaltonRussell J (1985) Political Parties and Political Representation: Party supporters and party elites in nine nations. Comparative Political Studies18(3): 267–299.
16.
DaltonRussell J (2002) The Decline of Party Identifications. In DaltonRussell JWattenbergMartin P (eds) Parties Without Partisans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 19–36.
17.
DolnýBranislavBabošPavol (2015) Voter–Representative Congruence in Europe: A loss of institutional influence?West European Politics38(6): 1274–1304.
18.
DoyleDavidElgieRobert (2016) Maximizing the Reliability of Cross-National Measures of Presidential Power. British Journal of Political Science46(4): 731–741.
19.
ElgieRobertMoestrupSophia (eds) (2007) Semi-Presidentialism Outside Europe: A Comparative Study. New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
EnyediZsoltTókaGábor (2007) The Only Game in Town: Party politics in Hungary. In WebbPaulWhiteStephen (eds) Party Politics in New Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 147–178.
21.
GolderMattStramskiJacek (2010) Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions. American Journal of Political Science54(1): 90–106.
22.
HaggardStephanMcCubbinsMatthew D (eds) (2001) Presidents, Parliaments, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HawkinsKirk AAguilarRosarioSilvaBruno CastanhoJenneErin KKocijanBojanaKaltwasserCristóbal Rovira (2019) Measuring Populist Discourse: The global populism database. Paper presented at the 2019 EPSA Annual Conference, Belfast, UK, June 2013.
24.
HuberJohn DPowellG Bingham (1994) Congruence Between Citizens and Policymakers in Two Visions of Liberal Democracy. World Politics46(3): 291–326.
JohnsonGreggCrispBrian (2003) Mandates, Powers, and Policies. American Journal of Political Science47(1): 128–142.
27.
LefkofridiZoeGigerNathalieGallegoAina (2014) Electoral Participation in Pursuit of Policy Representation: Ideological congruence and voter turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties24(3): 291–311.
28.
LupuNoamWarnerZach (2022) Why Are the Affluent Better Represented Around the World?European Journal of Political Research61(1): 67–85.
29.
McEvoyCaroline (2012) Unequal Representation in the EU: A multi-level analysis of voter–party congruence in EP elections. Representation48(1): 83–99.
30.
MillerArthur H (1974) Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964–1970. American Political Science Review68(3): 951–972.
31.
MillerWarrenStokesDonald (1963) Constituency Influence in Congress. American Political Science Review57(1): 45–56.
32.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2017) Voter Turnout by Age Group at Lower House General Election. Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.
33.
PageBenjamin IBoutonMarshall M (2008) The Foreign Policy Disconnect: What Americans Want from Our Leaders but Don’t Get. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
PitkinHanna F (1967) The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
35.
PowellG BinghamJr (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
36.
PowellG BinghamJr (2004) Political Representation in Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science7: 273–296.
37.
RasmussenAnneReherStefanieToshkovDimiter (2019) The Opinion–Policy Nexus in Europe and the Role of Political Institutions. European Journal of Political Research58(2): 412–434.
38.
RohrschneiderRobertMilesMatthew R (2015) Representation Through Parties? Environmental attitudes and party stances in Europe in 2013. Environmental Politics24(4): 617–640.
39.
RohrschneiderRobertWhitefieldStephen (2012) Institutional Context and Representational Strain in Party–Voter Agreement in Western and Eastern Europe. West European Politics35(6): 1320–1340.
40.
RossetJanSteckerChristian (2019) How Well Are Citizens Represented by Their Governments? Issue congruence and inequality in Europe. European Political Science Review11(2): 145–160.
41.
SamuelsDavid JShugartMatthew S (2010) Presidents, Parties, and Prime Ministers: How the Separation of Powers Affects Party Organization and Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
ShimJaemin (Forthcoming) Fifty Shades of Mass–Elite Discrepancy: Varieties of Political Dimensions and Discrepancy Forms. In Shim Jaemin (ed.) Mass-Elite Representation Gap in Oold and New Democracies: Critical Juncture and Elite Agency. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
43.
ShimJaeminFossatiDiego (2023) Presidents and Mass–Elite Preference Congruence in East and Southeast Asian Democracies. Paper presented at the 2023 ECPR Annual Conference, Prague, the Czech Republic.
44.
ShimJaeminGherghinaSergiu (2020) Measuring the Mass–Elite Preference Congruence: Findings from a meta-analysis and introduction to the symposium. European Political Science19(4): 509–527.
45.
ShugartMatthewCareyJohn (1992) Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
SotaKato (2018) The Demographic Issue and Silver Democracy. In FunabashiYoichi (ed.) Japan’s Population Implosion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 131–153.
47.
SteckerChristianTausendpfundMarkus (2016) Multidimensional Government–Citizen Congruence and Satisfaction with Democracy. European Journal of Political Research55(3): 492–511.
48.
StoetzerLukas F (2019) A Matter of Representation: Spatial voting and inconsistent policy preferences. British Journal of Political Science49(3): 941–956.
49.
TanakaAiji (2012) Japan’s Independent Voters, Yesterday and Today. Nippon.com, 16August.
50.
TraberDeniseHänniMiriamGigerNathalieBreunigChristian (2022) Social Status, Political Priorities and Unequal Representation. European Journal of Political Research61(2): 351–373.
51.
UmedaMichio (2022) The Politics of Aging: Age difference in welfare issue salience in Japan 1972–2016. Political Behavior44(2): 575–597.
52.
Van EschFemkeJoosenRikZuydamSabineVan (2016) Responsive to the People? Comparing the European cognitive maps of Dutch political leaders and their followers. Politics and Governance4(2): 54–67.
53.
WiesehomeierNinaBenoitKenneth (2009) Presidents, Parties, and Policy Competition. The Journal of Politics71(4): 1435–1447.
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.
