Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T15:56:47.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideological congruence and socio-economic inequality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2018

Wouter Schakel  and
Armen Hakhverdian
Wouter Schakel*
Affiliation:
Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Armen Hakhverdian
Affiliation:
Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines whether or not political representation in the Netherlands is biased toward the rich and higher educated by comparing the political orientations of members of parliament to those of the electorate. The analyses reveal stark differences in the representation of different socio-economic groups. The political views of elected national representatives are far more similar to those of rich, higher educated citizens than to those with less income and education. Moreover, a longitudinal analysis reveals that inequalities in political representation have actually grown in recent years. We also show that the use of measures of ideological self-identification might to lead to highly misleading results regarding the nature of political representation as opposed to the use of issue items. We conclude that, despite a highly proportional electoral system, the views which are represented in the Dutch lower house of parliament contain major distortions of the views of the broader electorate.

Keywords

representationinequalitycongruencepublic opinionthe Netherlandspolitical behavior (including public opinion and elections)
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , August 2018 , pp. 441 - 465
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2018 

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

Aaldering, L. (2017), ‘Political representation and education attainment: evidence from the Netherlands (1994-2010)’, Political Studies 65(1): 4–23.Google Scholar
Andeweg, R. (2011), ‘Approaching perfect policy congruence: measurement, development, and relevance for political representation’, in M. Rosema, B. Denters and K. Aarts (eds), How Democracy Works: Political Representation and Policy Congruence in Modern Societies, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 39–52.Google Scholar
Andeweg, R. and Thomassen, J. (2011), ‘Pathways to party unity: sanctions, loyalty, homogeneity and division of labor in the Dutch parliament’, Party Politics 17(5): 655–672.Google Scholar
Banducci, S., Donovan, T. and Karp, J. (2004), ‘Minority representation, empowerment, and participation’, Journal of Politics 66(2): 534–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, L.M. (2008), Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beaman, L., Chattopadhyay, R., Duflo, E., Pande, R. and Topalova, R. (2009), ‘Powerful women: does exposure reduce bias?’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 4(1): 1497–1540.Google Scholar
Best, H. (2007), ‘New challenges, new elites? Changes in the recruitment and career patterns of European representative elites’, Comparative Sociology 6(1): 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boräng, F. and Naurin, D. (2016), ‘Lobbying for the people? Measuring substantive representation by interest groups’. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, September 7–10, Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
Bovens, M. and Wille, A.C. (2010), ‘The education gap in participation and its political consequences’, Acta Politica 45(4): 393–422.Google Scholar
Bovens, M. and Wille, A.C. (2011), Diplomademocratie: Over de Spanning Tussen Meritocratie en Democratie, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.Google Scholar
Bovens, M. and Wille, A.C. (2017), Diploma Democracy: The Rise of Political Meritocracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bratton, K.A. and Ray, L.P. (2002), ‘Descriptive representation, policy outcomes, and municipal day-care coverage in Norway’, American Journal of Political Science 46(2): 428–437.Google Scholar
Broockman, D.E. (2013), ‘Black politicians are more intrinsically motivated to advance blacks’ interests: a field experiment manipulating political incentives’, American Journal of Political Science 57(3): 521–536.Google Scholar
Budge, I. and McDonald, M. (2007), ‘Election and party system effects on policy representation: bringing time into a comparative perspective’, Electoral Studies 26(1): 168–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, D.M. (2014), Representing the Advantaged: How Politicians Reinforce Inequality, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buiter, W. (2008), ‘Lessons from the North Atlantic financial crisis’. Paper presented at the conference ‘The Role of Money Markets’, jointly organised by Columbia Business School and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, May 29–30, London.Google Scholar
Carnes, N. (2013), White-Collar Government: The Hidden Role of Class in Economic Policy Making, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnes, N. and Lupu, N. (2014), ‘Rethinking the comparative perspective on class and representation: evidence from Latin America’, American Journal of Political Science 59(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Carnes, N. and Lupu, N. (2016), ‘What good is a college degree? Education and leader quality reconsidered’, Journal of Politics 78(1): 35–49.Google Scholar
Chattopadhyay, R. and Duflo, E. (2004), ‘Women as policy makers: evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India’, Econometrica 72(5): 1409–1443.Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (1989), Democracy and its Critics, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Domhoff, G.W. (2005 [1967]), Who Rules America? Power, Politics and Social Change, 5th edn, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ellis, C.R. and Ura, J. (2011), ‘United we divide? Education, income, and heterogeneity in mass partisan polarization’, in P. Enns and C. Wlezien (eds), Who Gets Represented?, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 61–92.Google Scholar
Ellis, C.R. (2012), ‘Understanding economic biases in representation: income, resources and policy representation in the 110th house’, Political Research Quarterly 65(4): 938–951.Google Scholar
Flavin, P. (2012), ‘Income inequality and policy representation in the American States’, American Politics Research 40(1): 29–59.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), ‘Five misunderstandings about case-study research’, Qualitative Inquiry 12: 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, M. (2012), Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gilens, M. (2015), ‘Descriptive representation, money, and political inequality in the United States’, Swiss Political Science Review 21(2): 222–228.Google Scholar
Gilens, M. and Page, B.I. (2014), ‘Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens’, Perspectives on Politics 12(3): 564–581.Google Scholar
Golder, M. and Stramski, J. (2010), ‘Ideological congruence and electoral institutions’, American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakhverdian, A., Van der Brug, W. and De Vries, C. (2012), ‘The emergence of a “diploma democracy”? The political education gap in the Netherlands, 1971-2010’, Acta Politica 47(3): 229–247.Google Scholar
Hakhverdian, A. and Mayne, Q. (2012), ‘Institutional trust, education, and corruption: a micro-macro interactive approach’, Journal of Politics 74(3): 739–750.Google Scholar
Hakhverdian, A., Van Ditmars, M., De Lange, S.L. and Schakel, W. (2018), ‘Are lower educated citizens better represented by lower educated representatives? Evidence from Local Politics in the Netherlands’. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hakhverdian, A., Van Elsas, E., Van der Brug, W. and Kuhn, T. (2013), ‘Euroscepticism and education: a longitudinal study of 12 EU member states, 1973–2010’, European Union Politics 14(4): 522–541.Google Scholar
Hayes, T. J. (2012), ‘Responsiveness in an era of inequality: the case of the U.S. Senate’, Political Research Quarterly 66(3): 585–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollanders, D. (2015), ‘De Draaideur in de Nederlandse Politiek’. Retrieved 1 June 2017 from www.stukroodvlees.nl/ economie/de-draaideur-in-de-nederlandse-politiek.Google Scholar
Huber, J. and Powell, B. (1994), ‘Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy’, World Politics 46(3): 291–326.Google Scholar
Iversen, T. and Soskice, D. (2006), ‘Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: why some democracies redistribute more than others’, American Political Science Review 100(2): 165–181.Google Scholar
Kam, C. (2001), ‘Do ideological preferences explain parliamentary behaviour? Evidence from Great Britain and Canada’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 7(4): 89–126.Google Scholar
Karvonen, L. and Selle, P. (eds) (1995), Women in Nordic Politics: Closing the Gap, Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Lesschaeve, C. (2017), ‘The predictive power of the left-right self-placement scale for the policy positions of voters and parties’, West European Politics 40(2): 357–377.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1997), ‘Unequal participation: democracy’s unresolved dilemma’, American Political Science Review 91(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999), Patterns of Democracy, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Louwerse, T., Otjes, S. and Van Vonno, C. (2018), ‘The Dutch parliamentary behaviour dataset’. Acta Politica 53(1): 149–166.Google Scholar
Lubbers, M. and Jaspers, E. (2011), ‘A longitudinal study of Euroscepticism in the Netherlands: 2008 versus 1990’, European Union Politics 12(1): 21–40.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (1999), ‘Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent ‘yes’’, Journal of Politics 61(3): 628–657.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (2015), ‘Should workers represent workers?’, Swiss Political Science Review 21(2): 261–270.Google Scholar
Mill, J.S. (1861), Considerations on Representative Government, London: Parker, Son and Bourn.Google Scholar
Pellikaan, H., De Lange, S.L. and Van der Meer, T. (2007), ‘Fortuyn’s legacy: party system change in the Netherlands’, Comparative European Politics 5(1): 282–302.Google Scholar
Pitkin, H.F. (1967), The Concept of Representation, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pontusson, J. (2015), ‘Introduction to the debate: does descriptive misrepresentation by income and class matter?’, Swiss Political Science Review 21(2): 207–212.Google Scholar
Powell, B. (2009), ‘The ideological congruence controversy: the impact of alternative measures, data, and time periods on the effects of election rules’, Comparative Political Studies 42(12): 1475–1497.Google Scholar
Schlozman, K.L., Verba, S. and Brady, H.E. (2012), The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schmeets, H. (2007), ‘Opzet en Uitvoering van het Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek’, in K. Aarts, H. Van der Kolk and M. Rosema (eds), Een Verdeeld Electoraat: De Tweede Kamerverkiezingen van 2006, Utrecht: Spectrum, pp. 259–274.Google Scholar
Soroka, S.N. and Wlezien, C. (2008), ‘On the limits to inequality in representation’, PS: Political Science and Politics 41(2): 319–327.Google Scholar
Tate, K. (2004), Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and their Representatives in the U.S. Congress, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thomassen, J.J.A. (2012), ‘The blind corner of political representation’, Representation 48(1): 13–27.Google Scholar
Thomassen, J.J.A., Van Ham, C. and Andeweg, R.B. (2014), De Wankele Democratie: Heeft De Democratie Haar Beste Tijd Gehad?, Amsterdam: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Ura, J.D. and Ellis, C.R. (2008), ‘Income, preferences, and the dynamics of policy responsiveness’, PS: Political Science and Politics 41(4): 785–794.Google Scholar
Van de Werfhorst, H. and De Graaf, N.D. (2004), ‘The sources of political orientations in post-industrial society: social class and education revisited’, British Journal of Sociology 55(2): 211–235.Google Scholar
Van der Brug, W. and Van Spanje, J. (2009), ‘Immigration, Europe and the ‘new’ cultural dimension’, European Journal of Political Research 48(3): 309–334.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, J.T.J. and Van den Braak, B. (2004), ‘Kamerleden Als Passanten in de Haagse Politiek: De Maatschappelijke Herkomst van Tweede-Kamerleden 1970-2004’, in C.C. van Baalen, et al. (eds), Jaarboek Parlementaire Geschiedenis 2004, Den Haag: SDU, pp. 69–81.Google Scholar
Van Spanje, J. (2010), ‘Contagious parties: anti-immigration parties and their impact on other parties’ immigration stances in contemporary western Europe’, Party Politics 16(5): 563–586.Google Scholar
Van Waarden, F. (1992), ‘Emergence and development of business interest associations: an example from the Netherlands’, Organization Studies 13(4): 521–561.Google Scholar
Whitby, K.J. (1997), The Color of Representation: Congressional Behavior and Black Interests, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Willumsen, D. and Öhlberg, P. (2017), ‘Toe the line, break the whip: explaining floor dissent in parliamentary democracies’, West European Politics 40(4): 688–716.Google Scholar
Winters, J.A. (2011), Oligarchy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Schakel and Hakhverdian supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Schakel and Hakhverdian supplementary material(File)
File 113.7 KB