Advances in the Study of Democratic Responsiveness: An Introduction
Abstract
Responsiveness is a central quality of representative democracy. During the past decades, a number of innovative studies have advanced our knowledge about actual responsiveness processes. However, research on the consequences that follow from responsiveness has lagged behind and forms the subject of this special issue. Our introduction identifies a range of conceptual issues that arise as we focus attention on citizens’ reactions to the ways in which politicians relate to public sentiments between elections.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Adams J., Haupt A., Stoll H. (2009). What moves parties? The role of public opinion and global economic conditions in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 611-639.
Anderson C. J., Blais A., Bowler S., Donovan T., Listhaug O. (2005). Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Arnold C., Franklin M. N. (2012). Introduction: Issue congruence and political responsiveness. West European Politics, 35, 1217-1225.
Bevan S. (2015). Bureaucratic responsiveness: Effects of elected government, public agendas and European attention on the UK bureaucracy. Public Administration, 93, 139-158.
Bevan S., Jennings W. (2014). Representation, agendas and institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 53, 37-56.
Brady H. E., Verba S., Schlozman K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89, 271-294.
Burstein P. (2010). Public opinion, public policy, and democracy. In Leicht K., Jenkins C. (Eds.), Handbook of politics (pp. 63-80). New York, NY: Springer.
Butler D. M. (2014). Representing the advantaged: How politicians reinforce inequality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Butler D. M., Nickerson D. W. (2011). Can learning constituency opinion affect how legislators vote? Results from a field experiment. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 6, 55-83.
Chamberlain A. (2012). A time-series analysis of external efficacy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 117-130.
Clarke H. D., Kornberg A., Scotto T. J. (2010). Accentuating the negative? A political efficacy question-wording-experiment. Methodology, 6, 109-117.
Craig S. C., Niemi R. G., Silver G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289-314.
Dahl R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dahl R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Disch L. (2011). Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. American Political Science Review, 105, 100-114.
Dobson A. (2014). Listening for democracy: Recognition, representation, reconciliation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dovi S. (2006). The good representative. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Erikson R., MacKuen M., Stimson J. (2002). The macro polity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Esaiasson P., Gilljam M., Persson M. (2013). Communicative responsiveness and other central concepts in between-election democracy. In Esaiasson P., Narud H.-M. (Eds.), Between-election democracy: The representative relationship after Election Day (pp. 15-33). Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.
Esaiasson P., Kölln A.-K., Turper S. (2015). External efficacy and perceived responsiveness—Similar but distinct concepts. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 27, 432-445.
Esaiasson P., Narud H.-M. (2013). Between-election democracy: An introductory note. In Esaiasson P., Narud H.-M. (Eds.), Between-election democracy: The representative relationship after Election Day (pp. 1-14). Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.
Ferrin M., Kriesi H. (2014). Europeans’ understandings and evaluations of democracy: Topline results from round 6 of the European Social Survey (ESS Topline Results Series, Issue 4). London, England: European Social Survey, Eric.
Gilens M. (2012). Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gilljam M., Persson M., Karlsson D. (2012). Representatives’ attitudes toward citizen protests in Sweden: The impact of ideology, parliamentary position, and experiences. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 37, 251-268.
Golder M., Stramski J. (2010). Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 90-106.
Grose C., Malhotra N., Van Houweling R. (2014). Explaining explanations: How legislators explain their policy positions and how citizens react. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 724-743.
Hobolt S. B., Klemmensen R. (2008). Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 309-337.
Holmberg S. (1989). Political representation in Sweden. Scandinavian Political Studies, 12, 1-36.
Jacobs L. R., Shapiro R. Y. (2000). Politicians don’t pander: Political manipulation and the loss of democratic responsiveness. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Jones B. D., Baumgartner F. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lax J. R., Phillips J. H. (2009). Public opinion and policy responsiveness. American Political Science Review, 103, 367-386.
Manin B., Przeworski A., Stokes S. (1999). Introduction. In Przeworski A., Stokes S., Manin B. (Eds.), Democracy, accountability, and representation (pp. 1-26). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mansbridge J. (2003). Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review, 97, 515-528.
Miller K. C. (2010). Constituency representation in Congress: The view from Capitol Hill. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Minozzi W., Neblo M. A., Esterling K. M., Lazer D. M. J. (2015). Field experiment evidence of substantive, attributional, and behavioral persuasion by members of Congress in online town halls. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 3937-3942.
Öhberg P., Naurin E. (2015). Party-constrained policy responsiveness: A survey experiment on politicians’ response to citizen-initiated contacts. British Journal of Political Science, 45, 689-703.
Page B. (1994). Democratic responsiveness? Untangling the links between public opinion and policy. Political Science & Politics, 27, 25-29.
Pitkin H. F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Powell G. B. (2004). The chain of responsiveness. Journal of Democracy, 15, 91-105.
Richardson L., John P. (2012). Who listens to the grassroots? A field experiment on informational lobbying in the UK. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 14, 595-612.
Soroka S., Wlezien C. (2010). Degrees of democracy: Politics, public opinion, and policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stimson J., Mackuen M., Erikson R. (1995). Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review, 89, 543-565.
Stivers C. (1994). The listening bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public administration. Public Administration Review, 54, 364-369.
Thomassen J. (1994). Empirical research into political representation: Failing democracy or failing models? In Jennings K., Mann T. (Eds.), Elections at home and abroad (pp. 237-264). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Tyler T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.
Urbinati N. (2006). Representative democracy: Principles and genealogy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Urbinati N., Warren M. (2008). The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 387-412.
Weakliem D. L. (2003). Public opinion research and political sociology. Research in Political Sociology, 12, 49-80.
Weissberg R. (1978). Collective vs. dyadic representation in Congress. American Political Science Review, 72, 535-547.
Wlezien C. (1995). The public as thermostat: Dynamics of preferences for spending. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 981-1000.
Wlezien C., Soroka S. (2012). Political institutions and the opinion-policy link. West European Politics, 35, 1407-1432.
Wlezien C., Soroka S. (2016). Public Opinion and Public Policy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Retrieved from http://politics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-74.
Biographies
Peter Esaiasson is a professor of political science at the University of Gothenburg. His main research interests are empirical democratic theory, election campaigns, and the political consequences of ethnic diversity.
Christopher Wlezien is Hogg professor of Government at the University of Texas at Austin. His primary, ongoing research develops and tests a “thermostatic” model of public opinion and policy, and his other major project assesses the evolution of voter preferences over the course of election cycles. He has published numerous articles and chapters as well as a number of books, including Degrees of Democracy, The Timeline of Presidential Elections, and Who Gets Represented?
Cite
Cite
Cite
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: March 3, 2016
Issue published: May 2017
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Comparative Political Studies.
View All Journal MetricsPublication usage*
Total views and downloads: 3595
*Publication usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Publications citing this one
Receive email alerts when this publication is cited
Web of Science: 63 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 63
- What matters more to politicians: the quantity or quality of public opinion signals?
- The perceived power of clients, administrative burden and take-up of social benefits
- Emotional Responsiveness in an Age of Insecurity A Conceptual Proposal and a Research Agenda
- Age-group representation as responsiveness: multilayered congruence for the young
- Unheard Voices: The Importance of Intersectionality in Responsiveness and the Systematic Ignoring of Black Men by Elected Officials
- An Authenticity Expectations Gap? A Comparison of Publics’ and Members of Parliament’s Views on Politicians Being True to Themselves
- Fonder From Afar: Distance, Leadership, and the Legitimacy of the EU
- Rethinking Democratic Norms in Responsiveness Theory: A New Understanding and Its Applicability to Nonliberal Democratic Scenarios
- Public and political acceptability of a food tax shift – An experiment with policy framing and revenue use
- Understanding Government Public Opinion: How Conspiracy Mentality and Policy Issue Concerns Shape Government Performance Evaluations
- View More
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
