Traditional responsiveness theories are grounded in democratic norms, which limit responsiveness to a unidirectional process and suggest it is a product of liberal democracy. These norms not only conflict with empirical findings but also fail to capture the richness of the concept of responsiveness. This article challenges these norms by proposing a new understanding of responsiveness. More specifically, this research takes into account the interests of the represented and systematically develops a notion of bidirectional responsiveness, according to which political representatives influence the preferences of the represented through dialogue and consultation and respond to these preferences. This understanding leads to a revised definition of responsiveness and a fourfold typology that divides this notion into admissible, investigative, deliberative, and leading categories. I analyse two cases in China to demonstrate the applicability of this understanding in nonliberal democratic scenarios. Thus, this article advances an innovative theory of responsiveness, deepening our understanding of the role played by this notion in real-world contexts.
BarabasJ (2004) How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions. American Political Science Review98 (4): 687–701.
2.
BarabasJ (2016) Democracy’s Denominator: Reassessing Responsiveness with Public Opinion on the National Policy Agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly80 (2): 437–459.
3.
BowlerS (2017) Trustees, Delegates, and Responsiveness in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Political Studies50 (6): 766–793.
4.
BursteinP (2006) Why Estimates of the Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy Are Too High: Empirical and Theoretical Implications. Social Forces84: 2273–2289.
5.
ChenJPanJXuY (2016) Sources of Authoritarian Responsiveness: A Field Experiment in China: Source of Authoritarian Responsiveness. American Journal of Political Science60 (2): 383–400.
6.
ChoYN (2003) Public Supervisors and Reflectors: Role Fulfillment of the Chinese People’s Congress Deputies in the Market Socialist Era. Development and Society32 (2): 197–227.
7.
DahlRA (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
DischL (2011) Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation. American Political Science Review105 (1): 100–114.
9.
DischL (2015) The ‘Constructivist Turn’ in Democratic Representation: A Normative Dead-End?Constellations22 (4): 487–499.
10.
DoviS (2007) The Good Representative. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
11.
EastonD (1965) Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
12.
EntmanRMHerbstS (2000) Reframing Public Opinion as We Have Known It. In: BennettWLEntmanRM (eds) Mediated Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.203–225.
13.
EsaiassonPWlezienC (2017) Advances in the Study of Democratic Responsiveness: An Introduction. Comparative Political Studies50 (6): 699–710.
14.
EsaiassonPGilljamMPerssonM (2017) Responsiveness Beyond Policy Satisfaction: Does It Matter to Citizens?Comparative Political Studies50 (6): 739–765.
15.
EulauHKarpsPD (1977) The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly2 (3): 233–254.
16.
FishkinJSHeBLuskinRC, et al. (2010) Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China. British Journal of Political Science40: 435–448.
17.
Gentile FusilloCG (2023) Between the Square and the Circle: A View from the ‘Representative Standpoint’. European Journal of Political Theory. Epub ahead of print 11 September. DOI: 10.1177/14748851231197800.
18.
HassidJBrassJN (2015) Scandals, Media and Good Governance in China and Kenya. Journal of Asian and African Studies50 (3): 325–342.
19.
HoboltSBKlemmensenR (2008) Government Responsiveness and Political Competition in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Political Studies41 (3): 309–337.
LiaoY (2018) Toward a Pragmatic Model of Public Responsiveness: Implications for Enhancing Public Administrators’ Responsiveness to Citizen Demands. International Journal of Public Administration41 (2): 159–169.
22.
LuedersH (2022) Electoral Responsiveness in Closed Autocracies: Evidence from Petitions in the former German Democratic Republic. American Political Science Review116 (3): 827–842.
23.
LukesS (1974) Power: A Radical View. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
MansbridgeJ (2003) Rethinking Representation. American Political Science Review97 (4): 515–528.
25.
MansbridgeJ (2019) Recursive Representation. In: CastiglioneDPollakJ (eds) Creating Political Presence: The New Politics of Democratic Representation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp.298–338.
26.
MansbridgeJ (2023) The Deepest Foundation of Our Democratic Crisis. International Political Science Review. Epub ahead of print 21 December. DOI: 10.1177/01925121231203719.
27.
MengTPanJYangP (2017) Conditional Receptivity to Citizen Participation. Comparative Political Studies50 (4): 399–433.
28.
PitkinH (1967) The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
29.
PowellGB (2004) The Quality of Democracy: The Chain of Responsiveness. Journal of Democracy15 (4): 91–104.
30.
PrewittKEulauH (1969) Political Matrix and Political Representation: Prolegomenon to a New Departure From an Old Problem. The American Political Science Review63 (2): 427–441.
31.
RehfeldA (2006) Towards a General Theory of Political Representation. Journal of Politics68 (1): 1–21.
32.
RehfeldA (2009) Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy. American Political Science Review103 (2): 214–230.
33.
RossetJGigerNBernauerJ (2017) I the People? Self-Interest and Demand for Government Responsiveness. Comparative Political Studies50 (6): 794–821.
34.
RuncimanD (2007) The Paradox of Political Representation. Journal of Political Philosophy15 (1): 93–114.
35.
SablA (2015) The Two Cultures of Democratic Theory: Responsiveness, Democratic Quality, and the Empirical-Normative Divide. Perspectives on Politics13 (2): 345–365.
36.
SalkinW (2021) Democracy Within, Justice Without: The Duties of Informal Political Representatives. Noûs56 (4): 940–971.
SawardM (2010) The Representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
SeversE (2010) Representation as Claims-Making. Quid Responsiveness?Representations46 (4): 411–423.
40.
TangW (2016) Populist Authoritarianism: Chinese Political Culture and Regime Sustainability. New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
VerbaSNieHN (1972) Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row.
42.
WolkensteinFWratilC (2020) Multidimensional Representation. American Journal of Political Science65 (4): 862–876.
43.
YoungIM (1996) Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy. In: BenhabibS (ed.) Democracy and Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. pp.120–135.
44.
YoungNC (2002) From ‘Rubber Stamps’ to ‘Iron Stamps’: The Emergence of Chinese Local People’s Congresses as Supervisory Powerhouses. The China Quarterly171: 724–740.
45.
ZhongS (2023) Coordinated Co-governance and Grassroots Innovation: A Case Study of Shenzhen’s Livelihood-Related Project Voting System. Chinese Political Science Review9: 577–597.
