Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-8cnds Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:53:44.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideals and Actions: Do Citizens’ Patterns of Political Participation Correspond to their Conceptions of Democracy?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2014

Åsa Bengtsson  and
Henrik Christensen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The interest in procedures for political decision-making has grown tremendously during recent decades. Given the intense scholarly debate and the implementation of greater opportunities for citizen participation in many democracies, there has been surprisingly little interest in citizens’ conceptions of democracy understood as their preferences concerning the processes by which the political system works. Some recent attempts do, however, suggest that it is important to expand the study of public opinion from policy output to decision-making processes, and that there are coherent patterns in citizens’ expectations of the way in which political decisions come about. What is not clear, though, is whether citizens’ different conceptions of democracy have repercussions for how they engage in politics. Using the Finnish National Election Study of 2011 (Borg and Grönlund 2011), this article explores the relationship between citizens’ conceptions of democracy and patterns of political participation. Results demonstrate a distinct association between citizens’ ideals and the actions they take.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 234 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Åsa Bengtsson is Academy Research Fellow in the Department of Political Science at Åbo Akademi University and Professor in Political Science at Mid Sweden University. Contact email: [email protected].

Henrik Christensen is a Postdoctoral Researcher in the Department of Political Science at Åbo Akademi University. Contact email: [email protected].

References

Anderson, C. and Goodyear-Grant, E. (2010), ‘Why are Highly Informed Citizens Sceptical of Referenda?’, Electoral Studies, 29(2): 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, B. (1984), Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a New Age (Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
Bengtsson, Å. (2012), ‘Citizens’ Perceptions of Political Processes. A Critical Evaluation of Preference Consistency and Survey Items’, Revista Internacional de Sociología, 70(2): 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, Å. and Mattila, M. (2009), ‘Direct Democracy and its Critics: Support for Direct Democracy and “Stealth Democracy” in Finland’, West European Politics, 32(5): 1013–1048.Google Scholar
Borg, S. and Grönlund, K. (2011), Finnish National Election Study 2011 (computer file), Finnish Social Science Data Archive (FSD) 2653, version 2.1 (22 January 2013), data collection by Taloustutkimus, Helsinki, produced by Election Study Consortium (Tampere: Finnish Social Science Data Archive).Google Scholar
Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Karp, J.A. (2007), ‘Enraged or Engaged? Preferences for Direct Citizen Participation in Affluent Democracies’, Political Research Quarterly, 60(3): 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, N., Schlozman, K.L. and Verba, S. (2001), The Private Roots of Public Action – Gender, Equality, and Political Participation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carman, C.J. (2007), ‘Assessing Preferences for Political Representation in the US’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinions and Parties, 17(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Christensen, H.S. (2013), ‘Institutional Incentives for Participation in Elections and Between Elections’, in P. Esaiasson and H.M. Narud (eds), Between-Election Democracy (Colchester: ECPR Press): 103–126.Google Scholar
Christensen, H.S. and Bengtsson, Å. (2011), ‘The Political Competence of Internet Participants: Evidence from Finland’, Information Communication and Society, 14(3): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citrin, J. (1974), ‘Comment: The Political Relevance of Trust in Government’, American Political Science Review, 68(3): 973–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A.R., Stotland, E. and Wolfe, D.M. (1955), ‘An Experimental Investigation of Need for Cognition’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(2): 291–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahl, R. (1956), A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (2004), Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (2006), Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 4th edn (Washington: CQ Press).Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J., Bürklin, W. and Drummond, A. (2001), ‘Public Opinion and Direct Democracy’, Journal of Democracy, 12(4): 141–153.Google Scholar
Donovan, T. and Karp, J.A. (2006), ‘Popular Support for Direct Democracy’, Party Politics, 12(5): 671–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckstein, H. (1975), ‘Case Studies and Theory in Political Science’, in F. Greenstein and N. Polsby (eds), Handbook of Political Science, vol. 7 (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley): 79–138.Google Scholar
Esaiasson, P. and Narud, H.M. (2013) (eds), Between-Election Democracy (Colchester: ECPR Press).Google Scholar
Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M. and Persson, M. (2012), ‘Which Decision-Making Arrangements Generate the Strongest Legitimacy Beliefs? Evidence from a Randomised Field Experiment’, European Journal of Political Research, 51(6): 785–808.Google Scholar
Esaiasson, P. , Gilljam, M., Lindholm, T. and Persson, M. (2013), ‘Deciding the Fair Way or Having it My Way? A New Look at Procedural Fairness Theory in the Domain of Policy Decisions’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. (1981), Retrospective Voting in American National Elections (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Font, J. and Alarcón, P. (2011), ‘The Role of Personality in the Explanation of Preferences for Democratic Processes’, paper presented at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Istanbul.Google Scholar
Hibbing, J.R. and Theiss-Morse, E. (2001), ‘Process Preferences and American Politics: What the People Want Government to Be’, American Political Science Review, 95(1): 145–153.Google Scholar
Hibbing, J.R. and Theiss-Morse, E. (2002), Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. (1997), Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Kaase, M. (1999), ‘Interpersonal Trust, Political Trust and Non-institutionalized Political Participation in Western Europe’, West European Politics, 22(3): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, J. (2009), Life and Death of Democracy (London: Simon & Schuster).Google Scholar
Leone, C., Wallace, H.M. and Modglin, K. (1999), ‘The Need for Closure and the Need for Structure: Interrelationships, Correlates, and Outcomes’, Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 133(5): 553–562.Google Scholar
Mair, P. (2006), ‘Ruling the Void? The Hollowing of Western Democracy’, New Left Review, 42: 25–51.Google Scholar
Majone, G. (2002), ‘The European Commission: The Limits of Centralization and the Perils of Parliamentarization’, Governance, 15(3): 375–392.Google Scholar
Marien, S., Hooghe, M. and Quintelier, E. (2010), ‘Inequalities in Non-institutionalised Forms of Political Participation: A Multilevel Analysis of 25 Countries’, Political Studies, 58(2): 187–213.Google Scholar
Micheletti, M. and McFarland, A.S. (2011), Creative Participation: Responsibility-taking in the Political World (London: Paradigm).Google Scholar
Michels, A. and de Graaf, L. (2010), ‘Examining Citizen Participation: Local Participatory Policy Making and Democracy’, Local Government Studies, 36(4): 477–491.Google Scholar
Neblo, M.A., Esterling, K.M., Kennedy, R.P., Lazer, D.M.-J. and Sokhey, A.E. (2010), ‘Who Wants to Deliberate – And Why?’, American Political Science Review, 104(3): 566–583.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (1999) (ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P. (2011), Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Pateman, C. (1970), Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Popkin, S.L. (1991), The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Riker, W.H. (1982), Liberalism against Populism (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman).Google Scholar
Rosanvallon, P. (2011), Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1987), The Theory of Democracy Revisited (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House).Google Scholar
Scarrow, S. (2001), ‘Direct Democracy and Institutional Change: A Comparative Investigation’, Comparative Political Studies, 34(6): 651–665.Google Scholar
Scarrow, S. (2004), ‘Making Elections More Direct? Reducing the Role of Parties in Elections’, in B.E. Cain, R.J. Dalton and S. Scarrow (eds), Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 44–58.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J.A. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harper).Google Scholar
Setälä, M. (2009), ‘Introduction’, in T. Schiller and M. Setälä (eds), Referendums and Representative Democracy (London: Routledge): 1–14.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J. and Rasinski, K. (2000), The Psychology of Survey Response (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Tyler, T. (2006), ‘Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation’, Annual Review of Psychology, 57: 375–400.Google Scholar
Wallace, W. and Smith, J. (1995), ‘Democracy or Technocracy? European Integration and the Problem of Popular Consent’, West European Politics, 18(3): 137–157.Google Scholar
Wass, H. (2007), ‘The Effects of Age, Generation and Period on Turnout in Finland 1975–2003’, Electoral Studies, 26(3): 648–659.Google Scholar
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L. and Brady, H.E. (1995), Voice and Equality: Civic Volunteerism in American Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Webb, P. (2013), ‘Who is Willing to Participate? Dissatisfied Democrats, Stealth Democrats and Populists in the United Kingdom’, European Journal of Political Research, 52(6): 747–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J.R. and Feldman, S. (1992), ‘A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences’, American Journal of Political Science, 36(3): 579–616.Google Scholar
Zittel, T. and Fuchs, D. (2007) (eds), Participatory Democracy and Political Participation – Can Participatory Engineering Bring Citizens Back in? (London: Routledge).Google Scholar