The thermostatic model of representation reviewed

European Political Science

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 533-543

  Thomas, Kathrin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 82455248850     PISSN: 16804333     EISSN: 16820983     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/eps.2010.73     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Bartels, L.M. (2009) ’Economic Inequality and Political Representation’, in L. Jacobs and D. King (ed.) The Unsustainable American State, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 167-196.
2. Binzer Hobolt, S. and Klemmensen, R. (2005) ’Responsive government? Public opinion and government policy preferences in Britain and Denmark’, Political Studies 53(2): 379-402.
3. Binzer Hobolt, S. and Klemmensen, R. (2008) ’Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective’, Comparative Political Studies 41(3): 309-337.
4. Blais, A. and Bodet, M.A. (2006) ’Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policy makers?’ Comparative Political Studies 39(10): 1243-1262.
5. Brooks, J.E. (1987) ’The opinion-policy nexus in France. Do institutions and ideology make a difference?’ Journal of Politics 49(2): 465-480.
6. Brooks, J.E. (1990) ’The opinion-policy nexus in Germany’, Public Opinion Quarterly 54(4): 508-529.
7. Budge, I. and McDonald, M.D. (2007) ’Election and party system effects on policy representation: Bringing time into a comparative perspective’, Electoral Studies 26(1): 168-179.
8. Dahl, R.A. (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven: Yale University Press.
9. Downs, A. (1957) ’An economic theory of political action in a democracy’, Journal of Political Economy 65(2): 135-155.
10. Duverger, M. (1954) Political Parties, London, UK: Lowe & Brydone.
11. Gilens, M. (2005) ’Inequality and democratic responsiveness’, Public Opinion Quarterly 69(5): 778-796.
12. Golder, M. and Stramski, J. (2010) ’Ideological congruence and electoral institutions’, American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 90-106.
13. Hellwig, T. (2008) ’Globalization, policy constraints, and vote choice’, Journal of Politics 70(4): 1128-1141.
14. Hellwig, T. and Samuels, D. (2007) ’Voting in open economies. The electoral consequences of globalization’, Comparative Political Studies 40(3): 283-306.
15. Huber, J.D. and Powell, G.B. (1994) ’Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy’, World Politics 46(3): 291-326.
16. Kim, H.-M. and Fording, R.C. (1998) ’Voter ideology in western democracies, 1946-1989’, European Journal of Political Research 33(1): 73-97.
17. Kim, H.-M. and Fording, R.C. (2001) ’Extending Party Estimates to Governments and Electors’, in I. Budge, H.-D. Klingemann, A. Volkens, J. Bara, and E. Tanenbaum (eds.) Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998, Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 157-177.
18. Klingemann, H.-D., Hofferbert, R.I. and Budge, I. (1994) Parties, Policies, and Democracy, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
19. Kuklinski, J.H. and Segura, G.M. (1995) ’Endogeneity, exogeneity, time, and space in political representation’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 20(1): 3-21.
20. Lijphart, A. (1984) Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries, New Haven, CT; London, UK: Yale University Press.
21. Lijphart, A. (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems. A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies 1945-1990, Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22. Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven, CT; London, UK: Yale University Press.
23. McDonald, M.D. and Budge, M.I. (2005) Elections, Parties, Democracy, Conferring the Median Mandate, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24. McDonald, M.D., Mendes, S.M. and Budge, M. (2004) ’What are elections for? Conferring the median mandate’, British Journal of Political Science 34(1): 1-26.
25. Monroe, A.D. (1979) ’Inconsistency between public preferences and national policy decisions’, American Politics Quarterly 7(1): 3-19.
26. Monroe, A.D. (1998) ’Public opinion and public policy’, Public Opinion Quarterly 62(1): 6-28.
27. Page, B.I. and Shapiro, R.Y. (1983) ’Effects of public opinion on policy’, American Political Science Review 77(1): 175-190.
28. Pierce, R. (1999) ’Mass-Elite Linkages and the Responsible Party Model of Representation’, in W.E. Miller, R. Pierce, J. Thomassen, R. Herrera, S. Holmberg, P. Esaisson, and B. Wessels (eds.) Policy Representation in Western Democracies, Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-32.
29. Powell, G.B. (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy. Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT; London, UK: Yale University Press.
30. Powell, G.B. (2004) ’The quality of democracy. The chain of responsiveness’, Journal of Democracy 15(4): 91-105.
31. Powell, G.B. (2006) ’Election laws and representative governments: Beyond votes and seats’, British Journal of Political Science 36(2): 291-315.
32. Powell, G.B. (2009) ’The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative measures, data and time periods on the effects of election rules’, Comparative Political Studies 42(12): 1475-1497.
33. Powell, G.B. and Vanberg, G.S. (2000) ’Election laws, disproportionality and median correspondence: Implications for two visions of democracy’, British Journal of Political Science 30(3): 383-411.
34. Soroka, S.N. and Wlezien, C. (2004) ’Opinion representation and policy feedback: Canada in comparative perspective’, Canadian Journal of Political Science 37(3): 531-559.
35. Soroka, S.N. and Wlezien, C. (2005) ’Opinion-policy dynamics: Public preferences and public expenditure in the United Kingdom’, British Journal of Political Science 35(4): 665-689.
36. Soroka, S.N. and Wlezien, C. (2008) ’On the limits to inequality in representation’, Political Science and Politics 41(2): 319-327.
37. Tsebelis, G. (2002) Veto Players. How Political Institutions Work, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38. Wlezien, C. (1995) ’The public as thermostat: Dynamics of preferences for spending’, American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 981-1000.
39. Wlezien, C. (1996) ’Dynamics of representation: The case of US spending on defence’, British Journal of Political Science 26(1): 81-103.
40. Wlezien, C. (2004) ’Patterns of representations: Dynamics of public preferences and policy’, Journal of Politics 66(1): 1-24.
41. Wlezien, C. and Soroka, S.N. (2007) ’The Relationship between Public Opinion and Policy’, in R.J. Dalton, and H.-D. Klingemann (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behaviour, Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 799-832.