Although public support for political authorities, institutions, and even regimes is affected by the delivery of positive economic outcomes, we know that judgments on authorities are also made on the basis of several other aspects that fall into the general theme of “procedural fairness.” So far, most of the literature examining satisfaction with democracy has, from this point of view, focused on the direct effects of both economic and procedural fairness indicators or evaluations. This study takes as its starting point a large number of studies in social psychology showing that procedural fairness moderates the effects of outcome favorability in the explanation of citizens’ reactions to authorities. It expands those findings to the macro-political level, using representative samples of European populations in twenty-nine countries. It reveals that the general depiction of satisfaction with the way democracies work in practice as a fundamentally “performance-driven attitude” needs to qualified: economic evaluations matter, but they do not matter in the same way in all contexts and for all people, with procedural fairness playing a relevant moderating role in this respect.
AndersonChristopher J.GuilloryChristine A.1997. “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems.”The American Political Science Review91:66–81.
4.
AndersonChristopher J.TverdovaYuliya V.2003. “Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes toward Government in Contemporary Democracies.”American Journal of Political Science47:91–109.
5.
ArmingeonKlausGuthmannKai. 2014. “Democracy in Crisis? The Declining Support for National Democracy in European Countries, 2007-2011.”European Journal of Political Research53:423–42.
6.
BellucciPaoloMemoliVincenzo. 2012. “The Determinants of Democratic Support in Europe.” In Citizens and the European Polity, edited by SandersDavidMagalhãesPedro C.TokaGabor, 9–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
BernauerJulianVatterAdrian. 2012. “Can’t Get No Satisfaction with the Westminster Model? Winners, Losers and the Effects of Consensual and Direct Democratic Institutions on Satisfaction with Democracy.”European Journal of Political Research51:435–68.
8.
BerryWilliam D.GolderMattMiltonDaniel. 2012. “Improving Tests of Theories Positing Interaction.”The Journal of Politics74:653–71.
9.
BrattonMichaelMattesRobert B.2001. “Support for Democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or Instrumental?”British Journal of Political Science31:447–74.
10.
BrattonMichaelMattesRobert B.Gyimah-BoadiEmmanuel. 2005. Public Opinion, Democracy, and Market Reform in Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BrocknerJoel. 2002. “Making Sense of Procedural Fairness: How High Procedural Fairness Can Reduce or Heighten the Influence of Outcome Favorability.”The Academy of Management Review27:58–76.
12.
BrocknerJoelAckermanGrantFairchildGregory. 2001. “When Do Elements of Procedural Fairness Make a Difference? A Classification of Moderating Influences.” In Advances in Organizational Justice, edited by GreenbergJeraldCropanzanoRussell, 179–212. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
13.
BrocknerJoelFishmanAriel Y.RebJochenGoldmanBarrySpiegelScottGardenCharlee. 2007. “Procedural Fairness, Outcome Favorability, and Judgments of an Authority’s Responsibility.”Journal of Applied Psychology92:1657–71.
14.
BrocknerJoelWiesenfeldBatia M.1996. “An Integrative Framework for Explaining Reactions to Decisions: Interactive Effects of Outcomes and Procedures.”Psychological Bulletin120:189–208.
15.
BrocknerJoelWiesenfeldBatia M.2005. “How, When, and Why Does Outcome Favorability Interact with Procedural Fairness?” In Handbook of Organizational Justice, edited by GreenbergJeraldColquittJason A., 525–53. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
BytzekEvelyn. 2015. “Satisfaction with Democracy in Times of Economic Crisis.” In The European Union beyond the Crisis: Evolving Governance, Contested Politics, and Disenchanted Publics, edited by StefanovaBoyka M., 319–31. Lanham: Lexington Books.
17.
CampbellDavid F.BarthThorsten D.PölzlbauerPaulPölzlbauerGeorg. 2015. Democracy Ranking (Edition 2014): The Quality of Democracy in the World. Vienna: Democracy Ranking.
18.
ChuYun-HanBrattonMichaelCruz-CokeMarta LagosShastriSandeepTesslerMark A.2008. “Public Opinion and Democratic Legitimacy.”Journal of Democracy19:74–87.
19.
ClarkeHarold D.DuttNitishKornbergA. Allan. 1993. “The Political Economy of Attitudes toward Polity and Society in Western European Democracies.”The Journal of Politics55:998–1021.
20.
CriadoHenarHerrerosFrancisco. 2007. “Political Support: Taking into Account the Institutional Context.”Comparative Political Studies40:1511–32.
21.
CuriniLuigiJouWillyMemoliVincenzo. 2012. “Satisfaction with Democracy and the Winner/Loser Debate: The Role of Policy Preferences and past Experience.”British Journal of Political Science42:241–61.
22.
DahlbergStefanHolmbergSören. 2014. “Democracy and Bureaucracy: How Their Quality Matters for Popular Satisfaction.”West European Politics37:515–37.
23.
DaltonRussell J.2004. Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
EastonDavid. 1975. “A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support.”British Journal of Political Science5:435–57.
25.
ErlingssonGissur Ó.LindeJonasÖhrvallRichard. 2014. “Not So Fair After All? Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and Satisfaction with Democracy in the Nordic Welfare States.”International Journal of Public Administration37:106–19.
26.
ESS Round 6. 2012. “European Social Survey Round 6 Data.” Data File Edition 2.2. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway—Data Archive and Distributor of ESS Data. Available at: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/download.html?r=6
27.
FolgerRobert. 1986. “Rethinking Equity Theory: A Referent Cognitions Model.” In Justice in Social Relations, edited by BierhoffHans WernerCohenRonald L.GreenbergJerald, 145–62. New York: Plenum Press.
28.
FolgerRobertCropanzanoRussell. 1998. Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
29.
FriedrichsenJanaZahnPhilipp. 2014. “Political Support in Hard Times: Do People Care about National Welfare?”European Journal of Political Economy35:23–37.
30.
FuchsDieterGuidorossiGiovannaSvenssonPalle. 1995. “Support for the Democratic System.” In Citizens and the State, edited by KlingemannHans-DieterFuchsDieter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
GuntherRichardMonteroJosé RamónTorcalMariano. 2007. “Democracy and Intermediation: Some Attitudinal and Behavioral Dimensions.” In Democracy, Intermediation, and Voting on Four Continents, edited by GuntherRichardMonteroJosé RamónPuhleHans-Juergen, 29–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
HendersonAilsa. 2008. “Satisfaction with Democracy: The Impact of Winning and Losing in Westminster Systems.”Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties18:3–26.
33.
HeywoodPaul M.RoseJonathan. 2014. “Close but No Cigar”: The Measurement of Corruption.”Journal of Public Policy34:507–29.
34.
HoboltSara B.2012. Citizen Satisfaction with Democracy in the European Union.”JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies50:88–105.
35.
HolmbergSören1999. “Down and down We Go: Political Trust in Sweden.” In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government, edited by NorrisPippa, 103–22. New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
HuangMin-HuaChangYu-TzungChuYun-Han. 2008. “Identifying Sources of Democratic Legitimacy: A Multilevel Analysis.”Electoral Studies27:45–62.
37.
KayserMark. A.2014. “The Elusive Economic Vote.” In Comparing Democracies 4: Elections and Voting in a Changing World, edited by LeDucLawrenceNiemiRichard G.NorrisPippa, 112–32. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
KlingemannHans-Dieter. 1999. “Mapping Political Support in the 1990s: A Global Analysis.” In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government, edited by NorrisPippa, 31–56. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
LagosMarta. 2003. “Support for and Satisfaction with Democracy.”International Journal of Public Opinion Research15:471–87.
41.
LeviMargaretStokerLaura. 2000. “Political Trust and Trustworthiness.”Annual Review of Political Science3:475–507.
42.
LindE. AllanTylerTom R.1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.
43.
LindeJonas. 2012. “Why Feed the Hand That Bites You? Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and System Support in Post-communist Democracies.”European Journal of Political Research51:410–34.
44.
LindeJonasEkmanJoakim. 2003. “Satisfaction with Democracy: A Note on a Frequently Used Indicator in Comparative Politics.”European Journal of Political Research42:391–408.
45.
LindeJonasErlingssonGissur Ó.2013. “The Eroding Effect of Corruption on System Support in Sweden.”Governance26:585–603.
46.
LühisteKadri. 2014. “Social Protection and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Multi-level Analysis.”Political Studies62:784–803.
47.
MacCounRobert J.2005. “Voice, Control, and Belonging: The Double-Edged Sword of Procedural Fairness.”Annual Review of Law and Social Science1:171–201.
48.
MagalhãesPedro C.2014. “Government Effectiveness and Support for Democracy.”European Journal of Political Research53:77–97.
49.
MattesRobertBrattonMichael. 2007. “Learning about Democracy in Africa: Awareness, Performance, and Experience.”American Journal of Political Science51:192–217.
50.
NewtonK.2007. “Social and Political Trust.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, edited by DaltonRussell J.KlingemannHans-Dieter, 342–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
NormanGeoff. 2010. “Likert Scales, Levels of Measurement and the “Laws” of Statistics.”Advances in Health Sciences Education15:625–32.
52.
NorrisPippa. 1999. “Introduction: The Growth of Critical Citizens?” In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government, edited by NorrisPippa, 1–27. New York: Oxford University Press.
53.
NorrisPippa. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
54.
PeffleyMarkRohrschneiderRobert. 2014. “The Multiple Bases of Democratic Support: Procedural Representation and Governmental Outputs.” In Elections and Democracy: Representation and Accountability, edited by ThomassenJacques, 181–200. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55.
PemsteinDanielMeserveStephen A.MeltonJames. 2010. “Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type.”Political Analysis18:426–49.
56.
PowellG. Bingham1993. “A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context.”American Journal of Political Science37:391–414.
57.
RohrschneiderRobert. 2005. “Institutional Quality and Perceptions of Representation in Advanced Industrial Democracies.”Comparative Political Studies38:850–74.
58.
RohrschneiderRobertLovelessMatthew. 2010. “Macro Salience: How Economic and Political Contexts Mediate Popular Evaluations of the Democracy Deficit in the European Union.”The Journal of Politics72:1029–45.
59.
RoseRichardMishlerWilliamHaerpferChristian W.1998. Democracy and Its Alternatives: Understanding Post-communist Societies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
60.
RothsteinBo2009. “Creating Political Legitimacy: Electoral Democracy versus Quality of Government.”American Behavioral Scientist53:311–30.
61.
SeligsonMitchell A.2002. “The Impact of Corruption on Regime Legitimacy: A Comparative Study of Four Latin American Countries.”The Journal of Politics64:408–33.
62.
StegmuellerDaniel. 2013. “How Many Countries for Multilevel Modeling? A Comparison of Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches.”American Journal of Political Science57:748–61.
63.
StevensonRandolph T.DuchRaymond. 2013. “The Meaning and Use of Subjective Perceptions in Studies of economic Voting.”Electoral Studies32:305–20.
64.
ThibautJohn W.WalkerLaurens. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
65.
TylerTom R.1984. “Justice in the Political Arena.” In The Sense of Injustice, edited by FolgerRobert, 189–225. New York: Plenum Press.
66.
TylerTom R.1997. “Procedural Fairness and Compliance with the Law.”Revue Suisse d’économie Politique et de Statistique133:219–40.
67.
TylerTom R.2006. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.”Annual Review of Psychology57:375–400.
68.
TylerTom R.LindE. Allan. 1992. “A Relational Model of Authority in Groups.”Advances in Experimental Social Psychology25:115–91.
69.
TylerTom R.RasinskiKenneth A.McGrawKathleen M.1985. “The Influence of Perceived Injustice on the Endorsement of Political Leaders.”Journal of Applied Social Psychology15:700–25.
70.
van der BrugWoutervan der EijkCeesFranklinMark N.2007. The Economy and the Vote: Economic Conditions and Elections in Fifteen Countries. New York: Cambridge University Press.
71.
VatterAdrianFlindersMatthewBernauerJulian. 2014. “A Global Trend toward Democratic Convergence? A Lijphartian Analysis of Advanced Democracies.”Comparative Political Studies47:903–29.
72.
WagnerAlexander F.SchneiderFriedrichHallaMartin. 2009. “The Quality of Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy in Western Europe—A Panel Analysis.”European Journal of Political Economy25:30–41.
73.
WellsJason M.KrieckhausJonathan. 2006. “Does National Context Influence Democratic Satisfaction? A Multi-level Analysis.”Political Research Quarterly59:569–78.
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.
