Which decision-making arrangements generate the strongest legitimacy beliefs? Evidence from a randomised field experiment

European Journal of Political Research

Volumn 51, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 785-808

  Esaiasson, Peter ^a   Gilljam, Mikael ^a   Persson, Mikael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Democratic decision making; Legitimacy beliefs; Participatory constitution making; Participatory democracy; Procedural fairness; Randomised field experiments

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865710115     PISSN: 03044130     EISSN: 14756765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02052.x     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Barber, B.R. (1984). Strong democracy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
2. Benomar, J. (2004). Constitution-making after conflict: Lessons for Iraq. Journal of Democracy 15: 81-95.
3. Bowler, S. & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices: Opinion, voting and direct democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
4. Bowler, S., Donovan, T. & Karp, J. (2007). Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies. Political Research Quarterly 60: 351-377.
5. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science 6: 307-326.
6. Christiano, D. (1996). The rule of the many. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
7. Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (eds), Deliberative democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Druckman, J.N. etal. (eds) (2011a). Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Druckman, J.N. etal. (eds) (2011b). Experimentation in political science. In Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Duflo, E., Glennerster, R. & Kremer, M. (2008). Using randomization in development economics research: A toolkit. In T.P. Schultz & J. Strauss (eds), Handbook of development economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
11. Duus-Otterström, G. (2011). Freedom of will and the value of choice. Social Theory & Practice 37: 256-284.
12. Dworkin, R. (2000). Sovereign virtue. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Esaiasson, P. (2010). Will citizens take no for an answer? What government officials can do to enhance decision acceptance. European Political Science Review 2: 351-371.
14. Estlund, D. (2008). Democratic authority. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15. Fehrenbacher, D.E. (1989). Constitutions and constitutionalism in the slaveholding South. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
16. Gangl, A. (2003). Procedural justice theory and evaluations of the lawmaking process. Political Behavior 25: 119-149.
17. Gash, A. & Murakami, M.H. (2009). Courts, Legislatures and Ballot Initiatives: How Policy Venue Affects Public Acceptance. Paper presented at the APSA meeting, Toronto.
18. Gerber, A.S. & Green, D.P. (2009). Field experiments and natural experiments. In R. Goodin (ed.) Oxford handbook of political science. New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Gerber, A.S., Huber, G.A. & Washington, E. (2010). Party affiliation, partisanship and political beliefs: A field experiment. American Political Science Review 104 (4): 720-744.
20. Gibson, J. & Duch, R. (1991). Elitist theory and political tolerance in Western Europe. Political Behavior 13: 191-212.
21. Gibson, J.L., Caldeira, G.A. & Spence, L.K. (2005). Why do people accept public policies they oppose? Testing legitimacy theory with a survey-based experiment. Political Research Quarterly 58: 187-201.
22. Gilljam, M., Esaiasson, P. & Lindholm, T. (2010). The voice of the pupils: An experimental comparison of decisions made by elected pupil councils, pupils in referenda and teaching staff. Educational Assessment, Evaluation & Accountability 22: 73-88.
23. Gilljam, M., Pesonen, P. & Listhaug, O. (1998). The referendum in representatives democracies. In A. Todal Jenssen Pesonen, P. Pesonen & M. Gilljam (eds), To join or not to join: Three Nordic referendums on membership in the European Union. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
24. Grofman, B.N. & Reynolds, A. (2001). Electoral systems and the art of constitutional engineering: An inventory of main findings. In R. Mudambi, P. Navarra & G. Sobbrio (eds), Rules and reason: Perspectives on constitutional political economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Hedges, I.V. & Hedberg, E. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 29: 60-87.
26. Helwig, C.C. etal. (2007). Mainland Chinese and Canadian adolescents' judgments and reasoning about the fairness of democratic and other forms of government. Cognitive Development 22: 96-109.
27. Hibbing, J.R. & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Kinder, D.R. (2011). Campbell's ghost. In J.N. Druckman etal. (eds), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29. Konstantopoulos, S. (2009). Using power tables to compute statistical power in multilevel experimental designs. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation 14(10). Available online at: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=14&n=10
30. Leung, L., Tong, L. & Lind, E.A. (2007). Realpolitik versus fair process: Moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 92: 476-489.
31. Lind, E.A. & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
32. Lupia, A. & Matsusaka, J. (2004). Direct democracy: New approaches to old questions. Annual Review of Political Science 7: 463-482.
33. MacCoun, R. (2005). Voice, control and belonging: The double-edged sword of procedural fairness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1: 171-201.
34. Manin, B. (1997). The principles of representative government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Moehler, D.C. (2008). Distrusting democrats: Outcomes of participatory constitution-making. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
36. Morrell, M.E. (1999). Citizen's evaluations of participatory democratic procedures: Normative theory meets empirical science. Political Research Quarterly 52: 293-322.
37. Morton, R.B. & Williams, K.C. (2010). Experimental political science and the study of causality: From nature to the lab. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38. Neblo, M.A. etal. (2010). Who wants to deliberate - and why? American Political Science Review 104: 566-583.
39. Norris, P. (2004). Electoral engineering: Voting rules and political behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Olken, B.A. (2010). Direct democracy and local public goods: Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. American Political Science Review 104: 243-267.
41. Palfrey, T.R. (2009). Laboratory experiment in political economy. Annual Review of Political Science 12: 379-388.
42. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Persson, M. & Oscarsson, H. (2010). Did the egalitarian reforms of the Swedish educational system equalise levels of democratic citizenship? Scandinavian Political Studies 33(2): 135-163.
44. Persson, M., Esaiasson, P. & Gilljam, M. (Forthcoming). The effects of direct voting and deliberation on legitimacy beliefs. Manuscript under review.
45. Raudenbush, S. (1997). Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials. Psychological Methods 2: 173-185.
46. Rohrschneider, R. (1996). Institutional learning versus value diffusion: The evolution of democratic values among parliamentarians in Eastern and Western Germany. Journal of Politics 58: 422-446.
47. Rose, R., Mishler, W. & Haerpfer, C. (1998). Democracy and its alternatives: Understanding post-communist societies. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
48. Scanlon, T.M. (1998). What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
49. Skitka, L.J., Winquist, J. & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research 16: 309-341.
50. Smith, D. & Tolbert, C. (2004). Educated by initiative: The effects of direct democracy on citizens and political organizations in the American states. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
51. Snijders, T.A.B. & Bosker, R.J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.
52. Stone, P. (2009). Sortition and Democratic Legitimacy. Paper presented at the APSA meeting, Toronto.
53. Sullivan, J. etal. (1993). Why politicians are more tolerant: Selective recruitment and socialization among political elites in Britain, Israel, New Zealand and the United States. British Journal of Political Science 23: 51-76.
54. Sutter, M., Haigner, S. & Kocher, M. (2010). Choosing the carrot or the stick? Endogenous institutional choice in social dilemma situations. Review of Economic Studies 77: 1540-1566.
55. Thomas, M.A. (2010). What do the worldwide governance indicators measure? European Journal of Development Research 22: 31-54.
56. Thompson, D.F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497-520.
57. Tyler T.R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology 35: 117-125.
58. Tyler, T.R. (2001). A psychological perspective on the legitimacy of authorities and institutions. In J.T. Jost & B. Major (eds), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
59. Tyler, T.R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology 57: 375-400.
60. Tyler, T.R. etal. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
61. Van Prooijen, J.W. etal. (2006). How do people react to negative procedures? On the moderating role of authority's biased attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42: 632-645.