Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:58:04.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Opinion and Policy Making in Canada 1994–2001

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2005

François Petry  and
Matthew Mendelsohn
François Petry
Affiliation:
Université Laval
Matthew Mendelsohn
Affiliation:
Queen's University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This study examines the consistency between public opinion and public policy during the period 1994–2001 by matching responses to national survey questions on 230 issues with enacted policy proposals on the same issues. Policy outcomes were consistent with majority opinion 49 per cent of the time. This represents a significant drop from 69 per cent during the Mulroney years (1985–1993). Low opinion-policy consistency since 1994 is primarily attributable to divergences between public majorities that are increasingly supportive of a change toward the right and the policies of Jean Chrétien that are more leftist and status quo oriented than those of his predecessor. We argue that these divergences go largely unnoticed by the public because they tend to occur on low-profile issues. On the other hand, the evidence suggests a much tighter correlation between opinion and policy on a small number of high-profile issues of which the public is much more aware, thereby creating the appearance of attentiveness to Canadian public opinion.

Résumé. En comparant les décisions sur 230 enjeux de politiques publiques avec les résultats de sondages nationaux sur ces mêmes enjeux, cet article cherche à quantifier le degré d'adéquation entre l'opinion publique et la politique gouvernementale entre 1994 et 2001. Les calculs révèlent que seulement 49 pour cent des décisions du gouvernement de Jean Chrétien sont allées dans le même sens que l'opinion publique, en nette diminution par rapport aux 69 pour cent observés pendant la période Mulroney (1985–1993). La baisse de corrélation depuis 1994 est principalement attribuable à la divergence entre une opinion publique de plus en plus favorable au changement et idéologiquement orientée à droite et la politique du gouvernement de Jean Chrétien sensiblement plus résistante au changement et idéologiquement plus à gauche que celle de son prédécesseur. Le public a tendance à ignorer le manque de corrélation entre l'opinion et les politiques gouvernementales parce que les enjeux en question sont relativement peu importants. Par contre, il semble que la corrélation entre l'opinion et les politiques soit beaucoup plus forte dans un petit nombre d'enjeux importants que le public reconnaît, créant ainsi l'apparence d'un gouvernement attentif aux souhaits de l'opinion publique canadienne.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 505 - 529
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

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

Achen, Christopher. 1975. “Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response.” American Political Science Review 69: 1218–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 1991. “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup.” American Political Science Review 85: 457–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bélanger, Éric and François Petry. 2002. “The Rational Public: A Canadian Test of the Page and Shapiro Argument.” Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association in Chicago.
Blais, André and Elisabeth Gidengil. 1991. Making Representative Democracy Work: The Views of Canadians. Toronto: Dundurn Press.
Brettschneider, Frank. 1996. “Public Opinion and Parliamentary Action: Responsiveness in the German Bundestag in Comparative Perspective.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 8: 292–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Joel. 1985. “Democratic Frustration in the Anglo-American Polities: A Quantification of Inconsistency Between Mass Public Opinion and Public Policy.” The Western Political Quarterly 38: 250–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Joel. 1987. “The Opinion-Policy Nexus in France: Do Institutions and Ideology Make a Difference?” The Journal of Politics 49: 465–80.Google Scholar
Brooks, Joel. 1990. “The Opinion Policy Nexus in Germany.” Public Opinion Quarterly 54: 508–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, Paul. 1998. Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Converse, Phillip. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. David Apter. New York: Free Press, 206–261.
Entman, Robert M. and Susan Herbst. 2001. “Reframing Public Opinion As We Have Known It.” In Mediated Politics: Communication and the Future of Democracy, eds. Lance Bennett and Robert M. Entman. New York: Cambridge University Press, 203–225.
Feld, Scott and Bernard Groffman. 1988. “Ideological Consistency as a Collective Phenomenon.” American Political Science Review 82: 773–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, Joseph F. 1989. “Mass and Elite Attitudes about Wiretapping in Canada: Implications for Democratic Theory and Politics.” Public Opinion Quarterly 53: 225–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, Joseph F. and Paul Howe. 2000. “Supreme Court Cases and Court Support: The State of Canadian Public Opinion.” Choices 6: 30–58.Google Scholar
Geer, John. 1996. From Tea Leaves to Opinion Polls. New York: Columbia University Press.
Glasser, Theodore and Charles Salmon, eds. 1995. Public Opinion and the Communication of Consent. New York: Guilford.
Herbst, Susan. 1998. Reading Public Opinion: How Political Actors View the Democratic Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hiebert, Janet L. 1999. “Wrestling With Rights: Judges, Parliament and the Making of Social Policy.” Choices 5: 3–31.Google Scholar
Homer-Dixon, Thomas. 2000. “Leadership Captive.” The Globe & Mail, November 24, A17.
Isernia, Pierangelo, Zoltan Juhasz and Hans Rattinger. 2002. “Foreign Policy and the Rational Public in Comparative Perspective” Journal of Conflict Resolution 46: 201–24.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence. 1993. The Health of Nations: Public Opinion and the Making of British and American Health Policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Johnston, Richard. 1986. Public Opinion and Public Policy in Canada: Questions of Confidence. Ottawa: Supply and Service Canada.
Kuklinski, Jay and Paul Quirk. 2000. “Reconsidering the Rational Public: Cognition, Heuristics, and Mass Opinion.” In Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality, eds. Arthur Lupia, Matthew McCubbins and Samuel Popkin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 153–82.
Margolis, Michael and Gary Mauser, eds. 1989. Manipulating Public Opinion: Essays on Public Opinion as a Dependent Variable. Pacific Grove: Brooks Cole Publishing.
Mauser, Gary and Michael Margolis. 1992. “The Politics of Gun Control: Comparing Canadian and American Patterns.” Government and Policy 10: 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelsohn, Matthew. 1998. “The Construction of Electoral Mandates: Media Coverage of Election Results in Canada.” Political Communication 15: 239–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelsohn, Matthew and François Petry. 2001. “The Third Role of Polling—The Applause Sign: Constructing Public Opinion in a Parliamentary System.” Mimeo, Centre for the Study of Democracy, Queen's University.
Monroe, Alan. 1979. “Consistency Between Policy Preferences and National Policy Decisions.” American Politics Quarterly 7: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, Alan. 1998. “Public Opinion and Public Policy, 1980–1993.” Public Opinion Quarterly 62: 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevitte, Neil, André Blais, Elisabeth Gidengil and Richard Nadeau. 2000. Unsteady State. The 1997 Canadian Federal Election. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. 1984. The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion—Our Social Skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nossal, Kim Richard. 2003. “The Mulroney Years: Transformation and Tumult.” Policy Options 24 (6): 76–81.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin and Robert Shapiro. 1983. “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.” American Political Science Review 77: 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin and Robert Shapiro. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in American's Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Petry, François. 1999. “The Opinion-Policy Relationship in Canada.” The Journal of Politics 61: 541–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savoie, Donald. 2003. “Chrétien: la politique, une question de pouvoir.” Policy Options 24 (6): 82–87.Google Scholar
Schedler, Andreas. 1998. “The Normative Force of Electoral Promises.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 10: 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuman, Howard and Stanley Presser. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys, Experiments on Question Form, Wording and Context. New York: Academic Press.
Shapiro, Robert and Lawrence Jacobs. 1989. “ The Relationship Between Public Opinion and Public Policy: A Review.” In Political Behavior Annual 2, ed. Samuel Long. Boulder: Westview Press.
Soroka, Stuart and Christopher Wlezien. 2003. “Opinion—Policy Dynamics: Canada in Comparative Perspective.” Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in Halifax.
Stimson, James, Michael MacKuen and Robert Erikson 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89: 543–65.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39: 981–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1996. “Dynamics of Representation: The case of U.S. Spending on Defense.” British Journal of Political Science 26: 81–103.Google Scholar
Zaller, John and Stanley Feldman. 1992. “Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 38: 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar