Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties' policy offerings

Comparative Political Studies

Volumn 44, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 1152-1178

  Ezrow, Lawrence ^a   Xezonakis, Georgios ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

citizen satisfaction; party positions; political parties; representation; Western Europe

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052801414     PISSN: 00104140     EISSN: 15523829     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0010414011405461     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Aarts K.,Thomassen J.Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter?.Electoral Studies. 2008;27:5-18.
2. Adams J.,Ezrow L.,Somer-Topcu Z.Is anybody Listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties' policy statements during elections.American Journal of Political Science. 2011;55:370-382.
3. Adams J.,Somer-Topcu Z.Moderate now, win votes later: The electoral consequences of parties' policy shifts in twenty-five postwar democracies.Journal of Politics. 2009;71:678-692.
4. Almond G.,Verba S.The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1963:.
5. Alvarez R. M.,Nagler J.Party system compactness: Consequences and measures.Political Analysis. 2004;12:46-62.
6. Anderson C. J.,Guillory C. A.Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems.American Political Science Review. 1997;91:66-82.
7. Benoit K.,Laver M.Party policy in modern democracies. London, UK: Routledge; 2006:.
8. Birch S.Electoral institutions and popular confidence in electoral processes: A cross-national analysis.Electoral Studies. 2008;27:305-320.
9. Borre O.,Andersen F. J.Voting and political attitudes in Denmark. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press; 1997:.
10. Budge I.,Klingemann H.,Volkens A.,Bara J.,Tanenbaum E.Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2001:.
11. Butler D.Explaining the increased polarization of the U.S. Congress. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association; 2007Chicago, IL; 2007.
12. Canache D.,Mondak J.,Seligson M.Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy.Public Opinion Quarterly. 2001;65:506-528.
13. Carey J.,Hix S.The electoral sweet spot: Low-magnitude proportional electoral systems.American Journal of Political Science. 2011;55:383-397.
14. Clarke H.,Nitish D.,Kornberg A.The political economy of attitudes toward polity and society in Western European democracies.Journal of Politics. 1993;55:998-1021.
15. Cox G.Making votes count. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1997:.
16. Criado H.,Herreros F.Political support: Taking into account the institutional context.Comparative Political Studies. 2007;40:1511-1532.
17. Dow J. K.A comparative spatial analysis of majoritarian and proportional elections.Electoral Studies. 2001;20:109-125.
18. Downs A.An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: HarperCollins; 1957:.
19. Drukker D.Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models.Stata Journal. 2003;3:168-177.
20. Easton D.A reassessment of the concept of political support.British Journal of Political Science. 1975;5:435-457.
21. Erikson R.,MacKuen M.,Stimson J.The macro polity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2002:.
22. Evans G.,Whitefield S.The politics and economics of democratic commitment: Support for democracy in transitional societies.British Journal of Political Science. 1995;24:507-534.
23. Ezrow L.The variance matters: How party systems represent the preferences of voters.Journal of Politics. 2007;69:182-192.
24. Fuchs, D., Guidorossi, G., & Svensson, P. (1995). Support for the democratic system. In H. Klingemann & D. Fuchs (Eds.), Citizens and the state (pp. 323-353). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25. Gallagher M.Proportionality, disproportionality and electoral systems.Electoral Studies. 1991;10:33-51.
26. The politics of electoral systems. Gallagher M.Mitchell P., ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2008:.
27. Gilley B.The meaning and measure of democratic legitimacy.European Journal of Political Research. 2006;45:499-525.
28. Green D. P.,Kim S. Y.,Yoon D. H.Dirty pool.International Organization. 2001;55:441-468.
29. Hearl, D. (2001). Checking the party policy estimates: Reliability. In I. Budge, H. Klingemann, A. Volkens, J. Bara, & E. Tanenbaum (Eds.), Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945-1998 (pp. 111-125). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30. Hellwig T.Explaining the saliency of left-right ideology in postindustrial democracies: The role of structural economic change.European Journal of Political Research. 2008;47:687-709.
31. Hellwig T.,Mikulska A.,Gezgor B.Perceptions of policy choice in contemporary democracies.European Journal of Political Research. 2010;49:705-730.
32. Hobolt S. B.,Klemmensen R.One for all, all for one: Issue competition in party leader rhetoric. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association; 2008Chicago, IL; 2008.
33. Hsiao C.Analysis of panel data. 2003). Analysis of panel data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2003:.
34. Huber J.,Powell G. B.Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy.World Politics. 1994;46:291-326.
35. Inglehart R.The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among Western publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1977:.
36. Inglehart R.Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1990:.
37. Kim M.Cross-national analyses of satisfaction with democracy and ideological congruence.Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties. 2009;19 (1): 49-72.
38. Klingemann H.,Volkens A.,Bara J.,Budge I.,McDonald M. D.Mapping policy preferences II: Estimates for parties, electors and governments in Central and Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990-2003. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006:.
39. Kollman K.,Miller J. H.,Page S. E.Political parties and electoral landscapes.British Journal of Political Science. 1998;28:139-158.
40. Kriesi H.,Grande E.,Lachat R.,Dolezal M.,Bornscheir S.,Frey T.West European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2008:.
41. Laakso M.,Taagepera R."Effective" number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe.Comparative Political Studies. 1979;12:3-27.
42. Laver M.,Benoit K.,Garry J.Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data.American Political Science Review. 2003;97:311-331.
43. Lijphart A.Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1999:.
44. Electoral Studies. Marks G., ed. 2007:1-141.
45. Marks G.,Hooghe L.,Nelson M.,Edwards E.Party competition and European integration in the East and West: Different structure, same causality.Comparative Political Studies. 2006;39:155-175.
46. McCarty N.,Poole K. T.,Rosenthal H.Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006:.
47. McDonald M.,Budge I.Elections, parties, and democracy: Conferring the median mandate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005:.
48. Meguid B.Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success.American Political Science Review. 2005;99:347-360.
49. Meguid B.Party competition between unequals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2008:.
50. Miller A. H.Political issues and trust in government: 1964-1970.American Political Science Review. 1974;68:951-972.
51. Miller A. H.,Listhaug O.Policy preferences and political distrust: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States.Scandinavian Political Studies. 1998;21:161-187.
52. Norris P.Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Norris P., ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1999:217-232.
53. Paskeviciute A.Elections, policy representation, and system legitimacy in contemporary democracies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association; 2006Philadelphia, PA; 2006.
54. Plümper T.,Troeger V.,Manow P.Panel data analysis in comparative politics: Linking method to theory.European Journal of Political Research. 2005;44:327-354.
55. Powell G. B.Elections as instruments of democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2000:.
56. Rohrschneider R.The democracy deficit and mass support for an EU-wide government.American Journal of Political Science. 2002;46:463-475.
57. RovnerH. (2005). Support for democracy in Latin America in the 1990s: A comparative empirical inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
58. Sartori G.Parties and party systems. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1976:.
59. Stimson J.,MacKuen M.,Erikson R.Dynamic representation.American Political Science Review. 1995;89:543-565.
60. Tavits M.Principle versus pragmatism: Policy shifts and political competition.American Journal of Political Science. 2007;51:151-165.
61. Tavits M.Representation, corruption, and subjective well-being.Comparative Political Studies. 2008;41:1607-1630.