Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T10:21:20.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jurisdiction Size and Local Democracy: Evidence on Internal Political Efficacy from Large-scale Municipal Reform

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2011

DAVID DREYER LASSEN  and
SØREN SERRITZLEW
DAVID DREYER LASSEN*
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
SØREN SERRITZLEW*
Affiliation:
Aarhus University
*
David Dreyer Lassen is Professor of Economics, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farigmagsgade 5, Building 26, DK-1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark ([email protected]).
Søren Serritzlew is Professor of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Optimal jurisdiction size is a cornerstone of government design. A strong tradition in political thought argues that democracy thrives in smaller jurisdictions, but existing studies of the effects of jurisdiction size, mostly cross-sectional in nature, yield ambiguous results due to sorting effects and problems of endogeneity. We focus on internal political efficacy, a psychological condition that many see as necessary for high-quality participatory democracy. We identify a quasiexperiment, a large-scale municipal reform in Denmark, which allows us to estimate a causal effect of jurisdiction size on internal political efficacy. The reform, affecting some municipalities, but not all, was implemented by the central government, and resulted in exogenous, and substantial, changes in municipal population size. Based on survey data collected before and after the reform, we find, using various difference-in-difference and matching estimators, that jurisdiction size has a causal and sizeable detrimental effect on citizens' internal political efficacy.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 105 , Issue 2 , May 2011 , pp. 238 - 258
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

Abadie, Alberto, and Imbens, Guido W.. 2008. “On the Failure of the Bootstrap for Matching Estimators.” Econometrica 76 (6): 1537–57.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, Baqir, Reza, and Hoxby, Caroline. 2004. “Political Jurisdictions in Heterogeneous Communities.” Journal of Political Economy 112 (2): 348–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Spolaore, Enrico. 1997. “On the Number and Size of Nations.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (4): 1027–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A., and Verba, Sidney. 1963. The Civic Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). 2008. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 5th ed. Lenexa, KS: AAPOR.Google Scholar
American National Election Studies (ANES). 1994. Continuity Guide to the American National Election Studies. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Political Studies.Google Scholar
American National Election Studies (ANES). 2005. ANES Time Series Cumulative Data File. Codebook variable documentation file. www.electionstudies.org/studypages/cdf/anes_cdf_var.txt (accessed May 5, 2010).Google Scholar
Andersen, Jørgen G. 2000. “Magt og afmagt: Nyt perspektiv på 'political efficacy.’” In Hvad folket magter: Demokrati, magt og afmagt [The Power of the People: Democracy, Power, and Powerlessness], eds. Andersen, Jørgen Goul, Torpe, Lars, and Andersen, Johannes. Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 123–52.Google Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., and Krueger, Alan B.. 2001. “Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 15 (4): 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristotle. 1948. Politics. Trans. Barker, Ernest. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Banzhaf, H. Spencer, and Walsh, Randall P.. 2008. “Do People Vote with Their Feet? An Empirical Test of Tiebout's Mechanism.” American Economic Review 98 (3): 843–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabas, Jason, and Jerit, Jennifer. 2010. “Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?” American Political Science Review 104 (2): 226–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, John, Frangakis, Constantine, Hill, Jennifer, and Rubin, Donald B.. 2002. “School Choice in NYC: A Bayesian Analysis of an Imperfect Randomized Experiment.” In Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics, Volume V, Lecture Notes in Statistics Series, Vol. 162, eds. Gatsonis, Constantine, Kass, Robert E., Carlin, Bradley, Carriquiry, Alicia, Gelman, Andrew, Verdinelli, Isabella, and West, Mike. New York: Springer, 3–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, J. Edwin, and Gamble, Darwin. 1983. “City/County Consolidation and Economies of Scale: Evidence from a Time-series Analysis in Jacksonville, Florida.” Social Science Quarterly 65 (1): 190–98.Google Scholar
Berg, Rikke, and Kjær, Ulrik. 2005. Den danske borgmester [The Danish Mayor]. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Case, Anne. 2000. “Unnatural Experiments? Estimating the Incidence of Endogenous Policies.” Economic Journal 110 (467): 672–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatti, Yosef, and Hansen, Kasper M.. 2011. “Who ‘Marries’ Whom? The Influence of Societal Connectedness, Economic and Political Homogeneity, and Population Size on Jurisdictional Consolidations.” European Journal of Political Research 50 (2): 212–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom-Hansen, Jens, Elklit, Jørgen, and Serritzlew, Søren. 2006. “Den store kommunalreform og dens konsekvenser.” In Kommunalreformens konsekvenser [The Effects of the Structural Reform], eds. Blom-Hansen, Jens, Elklit, Jørgen, and Serritzlew, Søren. Århus, Denmark: Academica, 11–36.Google Scholar
Blundell, Richard, Dias, Monica Costa, Meghir, Costas, and Van Reenen, John. 2004. “Evaluating the Employment Impact of a Mandatory Job Search Program.” Journal of the European Economic Association 2 (4): 569–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blundell, Richard, and MaCurdy, Thomas. 1999. “Labor Supply: A Review of Alternative Approaches.” In Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3A, eds. Ashenfelter, Orley C. and Card, David. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1559–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Gurin, Gerald, and Miller, Warren E.. 1954. The Voter Decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
Campbell, Donald T. 1969. “Reforms as Experiments.” American Psychologist 24 (25): 409–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, Peter Munk, and Klitgaard, Michael B.. 2008. Den utænkelige reform [The Unthinkable Reform]. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., and Acock, Alan C.. 1989. “National Elections and Political Attitudes: The Case of Political Efficacy.” British Journal of Political Science 19 (4): 551–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Thomas D., Shadish, William R., and Wong, Vivian C.. 2008. “Three Conditions under Which Experiments and Observational Studies Produce Comparable Causal Estimates: New Findings from Within-study Comparisons.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 27 (4): 724–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1967. “The City in the Future of Democracy.” American Political Science Review 61 (4): 953–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., and Tufte, Edward R.. 1973. Size and Democracy. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Dehejia, Rajeev H., and Wahba, Sadek. 2002. “Propensity Score Matching Methods for Nonexperimental Causal Studies.” Review of Economics and Statistics 84 (1): 151–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeHoog, Ruth H., Lowery, David, and Lyons, William E.. 1990. “Citizen Satisfaction with Local Governance: A Test of Individual, Jurisdictional, and City-specific Explanations.” Journal of Politics 52 (3): 807–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finifter, Ada W. 1970. “Dimensions of Political Alienation.” American Political Science Review 64 (2): 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finifter, Ada W., and Abramson, Paul R.. 1975. “City Size and Feelings of Political Competence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 39 (2): 189–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bernadette C., and Bean, Clive S.. 1993. “Political Efficacy—A Comparative Study of the United States, West Germany, Great Britain and Australia.” European Journal of Political Research 23 (3): 261–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J., Ichimura, Hidehiko, Smith, Jeffrey, and Todd, Petra. 1998. “Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data.” Econometrica 66 (5): 1017–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J., Ichimura, Hidehiko, and Todd, Petra. 1997. “Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme.” Review of Economic Studies 64 (4): 605–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, Daniel E., Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary, and Stuart, Elizabeth A.. 2007. “Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference.” Political Analysis 15 (3): 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houlberg, Kurt, and Pedersen, Carsten Strømnæk. 2003. “Appendiks 1: Dataindsamling.” In Kommunestørrelse og lokalt demokrati [Municipal Size and Local Democracy], eds. Kjær, Ulrik and Mouritzen, Poul Erik. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 207–10.Google Scholar
Iacus, Stefano M., King, Gary, and Porro, Giuseppe. 2009. “Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching.” Harvard University. Unpublished manuscript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imbens, Guido W., and Wooldridge, Jeffrey M.. 2009. “Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation.” Journal of Economic Literature 47 (1): 5–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, Lene P. 2006. “Hvor skal vi hen? Folkeafstemninger: Eliternes instrument eller folkets stemme?” In Stort er godt [Large Is Good], ed. Mouritzen, Poul Erik. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 167–87.Google Scholar
Kjær, Ulrik, and Mouritzen, Poul Erik, eds. 2003. Kommunestørrelse og lokalt demokrati [Municipal Size and Local Democracy]. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Lane, Robert E. 1961. Political Life: Why People Get Involved in Politics. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Larsen, Christian Albrekt. 2002. “Municipal Size and Democracy: A Critical Analysis of the Argument of Proximity Based on the Case of Denmark.” Scandinavian Political Studies 25 (4): 317–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, David Dreyer. 2005. “The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 103–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lolle, Henrik. 2003. “Kommunalpolitisk selvtillid.” In Kommunestørrelse og lokalt demokrati [Municipal Size and Local Democracy], eds. Kjær, Ulrik and Mouritzen, Poul Erik. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 162–76.Google Scholar
Lyons, W. E., and Lowery, David. 1989. “Governmental Fragmentation versus Consolidation: Five Public-choice Myths about How to Create Informed, Involved, and Happy Citizens.” Public Administration Review 49 (6): 533–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, Douglas. 1987. “Political Self-efficacy Tested.” American Political Science Review 81 (2): 571–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Bruce D. 1995. “Natural and Quasi-experiments in Economics.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 13 (2): 151–61.Google Scholar
Morlan, Robert L. 1984. “Municipal vs. National Election Voter Turnout: Europe and the United States.” Political Science Quarterly 99 (3): 457–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrell, Michael E. 2003. “Survey and Experimental Evidence for a Reliable and Valid Measure of Internal Political Efficacy.” Public Opinion Quarterly 67 (4): 589–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Edward N. 1970. “Cross-national Dimensions of Political Competence.” American Political Science Review 64 (3): 792–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, Richard G., Craig, Stephen C., and Mattei, Franco. 1991. “Measuring Internal Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study.” American Political Science Review 85 (4): 1407–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric. 2000. “City Size and Civic Involvement in Metropolitan America.” American Political Science Review 94 (2): 361–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Philip H. 1983. “The Participatory Consequences of Internal and External Political Efficacy: A Research Note.” Western Political Quarterly 36 (3): 400–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Rubin, Donald B.. 1983. “The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects.” Biometrika 70 (1): 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Donald B. 1974. “Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies.” Journal of Educational Psychology 66 (5): 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shadish, William R., Cook, Thomas D., and Campbell, Donald T.. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Tiebout, Charles M. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy 64 (5): 416–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titus, A. Constandina. 1981. “Shaping Attitudes towards Local Government: Factors That Influence Political Trust and Efficacy.” Urban Interest 3 (2): 37–45.Google Scholar
Treisman, Daniel. 2007. The Architecture of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verba, Sidney, and Nie, Norman H.. 1972. Participation in America. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Vetter, Angelika. 2002. “Local Political Competence in Europe: A Resource of Legitimacy for Higher Levels of Government?” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14 (1): 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.