Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T09:15:01.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy Demands and System Support: The Role of the Represented

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

John C. Wahlke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Discontent with the functioning of representative bodies is hardly new. Most of them were born and developed in the face of opposition denying their legitimacy and their feasibility. Most have lived amid persistent unfriendly attitudes, ranging from the total hostility of anti-democrats to the pessimistic assessments of such diverse commentators as Lord Bryce, Walter Lippmann, and Charles de Gaulle. Of particular interest today is the discontent with representative bodies expressed by the friends of democracy, the supporters of representative government, many of whom see in recent history a secular ‘decline of parliament’ and in prospect the imminent demise of representative bodies.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , July 1971 , pp. 271 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

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

1 The best analytical surveys of representation theory are those of Birch, A. H., Representative and Responsible Government (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964)Google Scholar, and de Grazia, Alfred, Public and Republic (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951).Google Scholar

2 Bryce's, views are expressed, for example, in Modern Democracies (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1921), Vol. II, pp. 335–57.Google ScholarLippmann's, can be found in Public Opinion (New York: Penguin Books, 1946), especially pp. 216–20.Google Scholar While General de Gaulle has, of course, not contributed formally to literature of this kind, Gaullist views are well known from various speeches, debates, and publication preceding the creation of the Fifth French Republic. They are conveniently discussed in Macridis, Roy C. and Brown, Bernard E., The de Gaulle Republic (Homewood, III.: Dorsey Press, 1960), pp. 124–31.Google Scholar

3 Clark, Joseph P., Congress: The Sapless Branch (New York: Harper & Row, 1964)Google Scholar; The Senate Establishment (New York: Hill & Wang, 1964).Google Scholar

4 Loewenberg, Gerhard, Parliament in the German Political System (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1967), p. 1.Google Scholar

5 Eulau, Heinz, ‘Views of Representation’, 53–85 in Pool, Ithiel de Sola, Ed., Contemporary Political Science: Toward Empirical Theory (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1967), p. 55.Google Scholar

6 Turner, Julius, Party and Constituency: Pressures on Congress. Johns University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Vol. LXIX, No. 1 (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1952), 178.Google Scholar Italics added.

7 Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar More recently Almond has specifically identified this kind of model as a sort of paradigm for developed representative political systems, listing ‘responsiveness’ (to demand inputs) as a capability of the most developed political systems. Almond, Gabriel A., ‘A Developmental Approach to Political Systems’, World Politics XVII (1965), 183–214, especially 197 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 See, for example, the familiar discussion in Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and Mcphee, William N., Voting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954), pp. 305–23.Google Scholar The particular propositions listed here are supported, in every instance, by survey data from various political systems collected at various different times. Although systematically analyzed in the original research for this paper, the data are not reported here because of limitations of space. The more relevant compilations and commentaries include the following: Cantril, Hadley, The Pattern of Human Concerns (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1965), pp. 167–71Google Scholar; Cantril, Hadley & Strunk, Mildred, Public Opinion 1935–46 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951)Google Scholar; Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960)Google Scholar; Philip E. Converse and George Dupeux, ‘Politicization of the Electorate in France and the United States’, reprinted from Public Opinion Quarterly, XXVI (1962) in Campbell, Angus et al. , Elections and the Political Order (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966), pp. 269–91Google Scholar; Converse, Philip E., ‘New Dimensions of Meaning for Cross-Section Sample Surveys in Polities’, International Social Science Journal XVI (1964), 19–34Google Scholar; Bauer, Raymond A., Pool, Ithiel De Sola, and Dexter, Lewis Anthony, American Business and Public Policy (New York: Atherton Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Donald E. Stokes, ‘Spatial Models of Party Competition’, reprinted from American Political Science Review, LVII (1963), in Campbell, Angus et al. , Elections, pp. 161–79Google Scholar; Axelrod, Robert, ‘The Structure of Public Opinion on Policy Issues’, Public Opinion Quarterly XXXI (1967), 51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Noelle, Elisabeth and Neumann, Erich Peter, eds.,Jahrbuch für öffentliche Meinung, III (1958–64), (Allensbach und Bonn: Verlag fur Demoskopie, 1965)Google Scholar; Mcphee, William N. and Glaser, William A., eds., Public Opinion and Congressional Elections (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962)Google Scholar; Epstein, Leon D., ‘Electoral Decision and Policy Mandate: An Empirical Example’, Public Opinion Quarterly XXVIII (1964), 564–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Buchanan, William, ‘An Inquiry into Purposive Voting’, Journal of Politics XVIII (1965), 281–96.Google Scholar

9 Stokes, Donald E. and Miller, Warren E., ‘Party Government and the Saliency of Congress’, Public Opinion Quarterly XXVI (1962), 531–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Reprinted in Campbell et al., Elections, pp. 194–211.

10 Committee on Political Parties of the American Political Science Association, ‘Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System’, Supplement, The American Political Science Review (September 1950).

11 Showell, Morris, ‘Political Consciousness and Attitudes in the State of Washington’, Public Opinion Quarterly XVII (1953), 394–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 University of Michigan Survey Research Center Study 0504, Preliminary Code Book, 1967, Deck 02, Columns 51, 52. I am grateful to Professor Warren E. Miller and the Inter-University Consortium for Political Research for their permission to cite this and other preliminary marginal tabulations.

13 , Stokes and Miller, , ‘Party Government and the Saliency of Congress,’ p. 209.Google Scholar

14 Converse, Philip E., ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’, pp. 206–61 in Apter, David E., ed., Ideology and Discontent (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964).Google Scholar

15 Mark Abrams, ‘Social Trends and Electoral Behavior’, reprinted from British Journal o Sociology XIII (1962), 228–42,129–44 in Rose, Richard, ed., Studies in British Politics (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966). Quoted on 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Campbell, et al. , Elections, especially 68–75.Google Scholar

17 Campbell, et al. , Elections, p. 169.Google Scholar

18 Zölnhofer, Werner, ‘Parteiidentifizierung in der Bundesrepublik und den Vereinigten Staaten’, pp. 126–68Google Scholar in Erwin K. Scheuch and Rudolf Wildenman, eds., Zur Soziologie der Wahl, Sonderheft 9/1965, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie (Köln und Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1965).

19 R. S. Milne and H. C. MacKenzie, ‘The Floating Vote’, reprinted from Political Studies, III (1955), 65–8,145–9 in Rose, Richard, ed., Studies in British Politics (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966). Quoted from 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Hunter, Floyd, Community Power Structure (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953).Google Scholar For a general commentary on this line of studies see Polsby, Nelson W., Community Power and Political Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963).Google Scholar

21 Dahl, Robert A., A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956)Google Scholar, especially Chapter 3, and Who Governs (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961).Google Scholar

22 Such problems are discussed in ‘Electoral Studies and Democratic Theory: I. A British View’, by John Plamenatz, and ‘… II. A Continental View’, by Sartori, Giovanni, Political Studies VI (1958), 1–15Google Scholar; Walker, Jack, ‘A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy’, American Political Science Review LX (1966), 285–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the reply by Robert A. Dahl, ‘Further Reflections on “The Elitist Theory of Democracy” ‘, Ibid., 296–304; and Bachrach, Peter, The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1967).Google Scholar

23 Verba, Sidney et al. , ‘Public Opinion and the War in Vietnam’, American Political Science Review LXI (1967), 317–33, p. 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Converse and Dupeux, ‘Politicization of the Electorate’, p. 291.

25 Latham, Earl, The Group Basis of Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1952), p. 35.Google Scholar

26 Wahlke, John C., Eulau, Heinz, Buchanan, William, and Ferguson, Leroy C., The Legislative System (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962), pp. 267–86;Google ScholarMiller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., ‘Constituency Influence in Congress’, American Political Science Review LVII (1963), 45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in Campbell et ah, Elections, pp. 351–73; and Stokes, Donald E., ‘A Variance Components Model of Political Effects’, 61–85 in Claunch, John, ed., Mathematical Applications in Political Science (Dallas, Texas: The Arnold Foundation of Southern Methodist Univ., 1965), p. 62.Google Scholar

27 Jewell, Malcolm E. and Patterson, Samuel C., The Legislative Process in the United States (New York: Random House, Inc., 1966), pp. 351–2.Google Scholar

28 Miller, and Stokes, , ‘Constituency Influence in Congress’, p. 368.Google Scholar

29 Kingdon, John W., ‘Politicians’ Beliefs about Voters’, American Political Science Review LXI (1967), 137–45. p. 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Warren E. Miller and Donald E. Stokes, ‘Constituency Influence in Congress’; Cnudde, Charles F. and Mccrone, Donald J., ‘The Linkage between Constituency Attitudes and Congressional Voting Behavior: A Causal Model’, American Political Science Review, LX (1966), 66–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Easton, David, Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hal Inc., 1965), p. 125Google Scholar; A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1966), pp. 353 ff.Google Scholar

32 Wahlke, et al. , The Legislative System, p. 25.Google Scholar

33 Froman, Lewis A. Jr,, ‘An Analysis of Public Policies in Cities’, Journal of Politics, XXVIII (1967), 94–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Dye, Thomas R., Politics, Economics and the Public: Policy Outcomes in the American States (Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1966), p. 293.Google Scholar

35 Cutright, Philips, ‘Political Structure, Economic Development, and National Security Programs’, American Journal of Sociology LXX (1965), 537–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Blake, David H., ‘Leadership Succession and Its Effects on Foreign Policy as Observed in the General Assembly’, Mimeographed paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Conference of Political Scientists, Indiana, 04 27–9, 1967.Google Scholar

37 Meehan, Eugene J., Contemporary Political Thought (Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press, 1967), p. 180.Google Scholar

38 Easton describes this distinction as that between ‘a stream of activities flowing from the authorities in a system’ (outputs) and ‘the infinite chain of effects that might flow from an authoritative allocation’ (outcomes). A Systems Analysis, pp. 349, 351.

39 Lindberg, Leon, ‘The Role of the European Parliament in an Emerging European Community’, 101–28 in Frank, Elke, ed., Lawmakers in a Changing World (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966), p. 108.Google Scholar The same point has been made in Wahlke, John, ‘Behavioral Analyses of Representative Bodies’, 173–90 in Ranney, Austin, ed., Essays in the Behavioral Study of Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962)Google Scholar, and is indirectly made by Jewell, Malcolm E. and Patterson, Samuel C., The Legislative Process in the United States (New York: Random House, Inc., 1966), pp. 528–31.Google Scholar

40 De Jouvenel, Bertrand, ‘ On the Nature of Political Science’, American Political Science Review LV (1961), 773–9, p. 777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Easton, , A Systems Analysis, p. 268.Google Scholar

42 Easton, , A Systems Analysis, pp. 272, 273.Google Scholar Easton himself later (434n.) makes the much stronger assertion still that, ‘Under some circumstances the need for outputs to bolster support may be reduced to the vanishing point.’

43 Easton, , A Systems Analysis, p. 273.Google Scholar

44 Edelman, Murray, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964).Google Scholar

45 Anton, Thomas J., ‘Roles and Symbols in the Determination of State Expenditures’, Midwest Journal of Political Science XI (1967), 27–43, p.39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 de Grazia, Alfred, Public and Republic, p. 170.Google Scholar

47 Smith, T. V., ‘Two Functions of the American State Legislator’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CXCV (1938), p. 187.Google Scholar

48 Eulau, Heinz and Hinckley, Katherine, ‘Legislative Institutions and Processes’, 85–189 in Robinson, James A., ed., Political Science Annual, I (1966), 85–6.Google Scholar

49 Beer, Samuel H., ‘The British Legislature and the Problem of Mobilizing Consent’, Elke Frank, p. 31.Google Scholar

50 Patterson, Samuel C., Midwest Legislative Politics (Mid-America Assembly on State Legislatures, Participants’ Edition, 1966), p. 114.Google Scholar

51 Truman, David B., ‘The Representative Function in Western Systems’, 84–96 in Buehrig, Edward H., ed., Essays in Political Science (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1966), p. 90.Google Scholar

52 ‘Political community,’ refers to ‘some minimal readiness or ability (of a group of people) to continue working together to solve their political problems’. A Systems Analysis, p. 172. ‘Political Regime: refers to the values and principles, norms ("operating rules and rules of the game") and structures of authority (authority-roles) by which, over a period of time authoritative decisions are made in the political community.’ (A Systems Analysis, 190–211). Political authorities are the persons who occupy the authoritative roles at any given point in time. (A Systems Analysis, 212–19).

53 Easton, , A Systems Analysis, p. 332.Google Scholar

54 Key, Public Opinion and American Democracy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), P. 549.Google Scholar

55 Almond, and Verba, , The Civic Culture, pp. 101–5.Google Scholar

56 Almond, and Verba, , The Civic Culture, p. 551.Google Scholar

57 The ‘participant’ is ‘an active participant in the political input process’, the ‘subject’ hardly at all oriented toward input objects but positively (if passively) oriented affectively ‘toward the output, administrative, or “ downward flow” side of the political system’, and the ‘parochial’ detached from political roles of every sort, on both input and output sides. Almond, and Verba, , The Civic Culture, pp. 161, 19, 17 respectively.Google Scholar

58 Almond, and Verba, , The Civic Culture, p. 143.Google Scholar

59 Bachrach, Peter, Theory of Democratic Elitism, p. 38.Google Scholar

60 Woodward, Julian L. and Roper, Elmo, ‘The Political Activity of American Citizens’, American Political Science Review xliv (1950), 872–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 OMGUS, 26 October, 13 December, 1945; 31 January, 7 June, 9 August, 3 September, 1946. Reported in Cantril, and Strunk, , Public Opinion 1935–6, pp. 582–3.Google Scholar

62 Noelle, and Neumann, , Jahrbuch für öffentliche Meinung, July, 1958, p. 265.Google Scholar

63 Key's discussion (Public Opinion, 30ff) of ‘supportive’, ‘permissive’, ‘negative’, and ‘decisional’ consensus is most instructive here. See also Mcclosky, Herbert, ‘Consensus and Ideology in American Polities’, American Political Science Review lviii (1964), 361–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Prothro, James W. and Grigg, Charles W., ‘Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement’, Journal of Politics xxll (1960), 276–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Drop in proportion saying other regime better than France, 25 per cent for G.B.; 28 per cent for U.S.A.; 7 per cent for Italy; 31 per cent for West Germany; 16 per cent for U.S.S.R. Increase in proportion saying French worked better: 15 per cent for G.B.; 13 per cent for U.S.A.; 1 per cent for Italy; 14 per cent for West Germany; 9 per cent for U.S.S.R. Sondages, XXVI (1), (1966).Google Scholar

65 Iowa City Form of Government Study, 1966, Code Book. University of Iowa Laboratory for Political Research.

66 A.I.P.O. 17 July 1939, and 8 August 1939, reported in ‘The Quarter's Polls’, Public Opinion Quarterly, X (4), 632.Google Scholar The remainder of responses in each instance were DK and NA.

67 49 per cent and 51 per cent in two separate polls in September 1946, for example. A.I.P.O. reported in ‘The Quarter's Polls’, Public Opinion Quarterly, III (4), 580.Google Scholar

68 Survey Research Center, 1966, SRC Study 0504, ICPR Preliminary Code Book.

69 Almond, and Verba, , The Civic Culture, p. 101.Google Scholar

70 Anton, , ‘Roles and Symbols’, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

71 Dye, , Politics, Economics and the Public, p. 30.Google Scholar

72 De Grazia, , Public and Republic, p. 170.Google Scholar Italics not in original.

73 Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947), p. 285.Google Scholar

74 See text above, pp. 3–10.

75 For a summary of the implications of available studies on the dynamics of support and suggestions for further cross-national study of the problem see Boynton, G. R., Patterson, Samuel C., and Wahlke, John C., ‘Dimensions of Support in Legislative Systems’, a Paper prepared for the Quail Roost Conference on Comparative Legislative Research, Rougemont, North Carolina, 25–7 02, 1970.Google Scholar