Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T18:55:36.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clarifying the Concept of Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2011

JANE MANSBRIDGE
JANE MANSBRIDGE*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
*
Jane Mansbridge is Adams Professor, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 JFK Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This response to Andrew Rehfeld's “Representation Rethought” (American Political Science Review 2009) takes up his criticisms of my “Rethinking Representation” (American Political Science Review 2003) to advance a more relational and systematic approach to representation. To this end, it suggests replacing the “trustee” concept of representation with a “selection model” based on the selection and replacement of “gyroscopic” representatives who are both relatively self-reliant in judgment and relatively nonresponsive to sanctions. It explores as well the interaction between representatives’ (and constituents’) perceptions of reality and their normative views of what the representative ought to represent. Building from the concept of surrogate representation and other features of legislative representation, it argues for investigating, both normatively and empirically, not only the characteristics of individual representatives emphasized by Rehfeld's analysis but also the representative–constituent relationship and the larger representative system, including both elected and nonelected representatives, inside and outside the legislature.

Type
Forum
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 105 , Issue 3 , August 2011 , pp. 621 - 630
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aristotle, . [335–22 B.C.] 1988. Politics. Trans. Jowett, Benjamin, ed. Everson, Stephen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, Douglas R. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Beitz, Charles R. 1989. Political Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy. 2005. “Political Selection.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (3): 43–60.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy. 2006. Principled Agents? The Political Economy of Good Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Ghatak, Maitreesh. 2005. “Competition and Incentives with Motivated Agents.” American Economic Review 95 (3): 616–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey. 1996. “Selection and the Currency of Reward.” In The Theory of Institutional Design, ed. Goodin, Robert E.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 2007. Personal Roots of Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, Edmund. [1774] 1889. “Speech to the Electors of Bristol.” In The Works of the Right Honorable Edmund Burke, Vol. 2. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Cavanaugh, Thomas E. 1982. “The Calculus of Representation: A Congressional Perspective.” Western Political Quarterly 35 (1): 120–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabal, Patrick, and Daloz, Jean-Pascal. 2006. Culture Troubles: Politics and the Interpretation of Meaning. London: Hurst.Google Scholar
Davidson, Roger H. 1969. The Role of the Congressman. New York: Pegasus.Google Scholar
Eulau, Heinz, Wahlke, John C., Buchanan, William, and Ferguson, Leroy C.. 1959. “The Role of the Representative: Some Empirical Observations on the Theory of Edmund Burke.” American Political Science Review 53 (3): 742–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James. 1999. “Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians.” In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, eds. Przeworski, Adam, Stokes, Susan C., and Manin, Bernard. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
FennoRichard F., Jr. Richard F., Jr. 1978. Home Style. Boston: Little, Brown. Gamble, Katrina L. 2007. “Black Political Representation: An Examination of Legislative Activity within U.S. House Committees.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 32 (3): 421–47.Google Scholar
Gimple, James G., Lee, Frances E., and Pearson-Merkovitz, Shanna. 2008. “The Check is in the Mail: Interdistrict Funding Flows in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (2): 373–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Elizabeth. 1996. “Term Limitations and the Myth of the Citizen–Legislator.” Cornell Law Review 81: 623–97.Google Scholar
Herzog, Don. 1998. Poisoning the Minds of the Lower Orders. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kartik, Navin, and Preston McAfee, R.. 2007. “Signaling Character in Electoral Competition.” American Economic Review 97 (3): 852–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1981. Congressmen's Voting Decisions. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 1993. “Group Representation in Canadian Politics.” In Equity and Community, ed. Siedle, F. L.. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.Google Scholar
Lee, David S., Moretti, Enrico, and Butler, Matthew J.. 2004. “Do Voters Affect or Elect Policies? Evidence from the U.S. House.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (3): 807–60.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1997. Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1980. Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1986. Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2009. “A ‘Selection Model’ of Political Representation.” Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (4): 369–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, Douglas. 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
McMurray, Carl D., and Parsons, Malcolm B.. 1965. “Public Attitudes toward the Representational Roles of Legislators and Judges.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 9 (2): 167–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montanaro, Laura. 2008. “The Democratic Potential of ‘Self-authorized’ Representatives.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2008. “Three Conceptions of Democratic Control.” Constellations 15 (1): 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. [1967] 1972. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Prewitt, Kenneth. 1970. “Political Ambitions, Volunteerism, and Electoral Accountability.” American Political Science Review 64 (1): 5–17.Google Scholar
Pratt, John W., and Zeckhauser, Richard J., eds. 1985. Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1973. The Beliefs of Politicians: Ideology, Conflict, and Democracy in Britain and Italy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2005. The Concept of Constituency: Political Representation, Democratic Legitimacy, and Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2009. “Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy.” American Political Science Review 103 (2): 214–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubenstein, Jennifer. 2007. “Accountability in an Unequal World.” Journal of Politics 69 (3): 616–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubenstein, Jennifer. 2008. “The Ethics of NGO Advocacy, or Why It Is OK That No One Elected Oxfam.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2006. “The Representative Claim.” Contemporary Political Theory 5: 297–318.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2009. “Authorisation and Authenticity: Representation and the Unelected.” Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipman, Tim. 2008. “Sarah Palin: John McCain's Secret Weapon to Win Over the Reagan Democrats.” Telegraph, September 6. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2695021/Sarah-Palin-John-McCains-secret-weapon-to-win-over-the-Reagan-Democrats.html (accessed June 24, 2010).Google Scholar
Storing, Herbert J., ed. 1981. The Complete Anti-Federalist, Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Dennis F. 2008. “Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, Manon. 2006. “The Substantive Representation of Women and PR: Some Reflections on the Role of Surrogate Representation and Critical Mass.” Politics and Gender 2 (4): 502–11.Google Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia, and Warren, Mark E.. 2008. “The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry E.. 1995 Voice and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weissberg, Robert. 1978. “Collective vs. Dyadic Representation in Congress.” American Political Science Review 72 (2): 535–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Will, George F. 1992. Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.