BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Burean Toma (Babes-Bolyai University)
Tytuł
The Political Representation of Salient Issues
Źródło
Polish Sociological Review, 2015, nr 3, s. 329-353, tab., rys., bibliogr. 72 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Demokracja, Opinia publiczna, Analiza danych statystycznych, Partie polityczne
Democracy, Public opinion, Statistical data analysis, Political parties
Uwagi
summ.
Kraj/Region
Europa Wschodnia, Węgry
Eastern Europe, Hungary
Abstrakt
This paper deals with research into the quality of democracy and political representation and intends to make two contributions to the debate on the representation of citizens' preferences in Eastern Europe. First, attention is focused on the level of congruence in a period of transition (1998-2001) in two countries: Hungary and Poland. The intent is to demonstrate that political representation, understood as a congruence of preferences on issues, is present in transitional democracies and improves in Poland from 1997 to 2001. Second, differences in congruence are accounted for. The first hypothesis is that citizens' and parliamentarians' rankings of the importance of issues will differ due to the different reasons these groups become involved in politics. Secondly, the variation of congruence is explained by the importance (salience) citizens attribute to an issue. Furthermore, saliency makes political parties crowd to represent the majority preference. On less salient issues political party representatives hold to their ideological preferences. For comparison purposes congruence is operationalized as a 'one to many linkage' and is measured in accord with the measurements of Kitschelt et al. (1999) of absolute and relative representation. The hypotheses are tested using data from 1997 and 2001 for Poland and 1998 for Hungary. The data allows for measuring policy preference on a range of issues in economic, social, cultural, and foreign policy domains. The measures of congruence are unique in recording the preferences of a sample of citizens and a sample of representatives in both countries. For citizens, the analysis was conducted at the level of individuals and party-supporter groups, while for the MPs, it was conducted at the level of political party groups. The findings have implications for the study of how saliency affects political representation and contribute to the understanding of the transition to democracy in Eastern Europe.(original abstract)
Dostępne w
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Achen, C. H. 1978. Measuring Representation, The American Journal of Political Science 22(3): 475-510.
  2. Achen, C. H. 1977. Measuring Representation: Perils of the Correlation Coefficient, The American Journal of Political Science 21(4): 805-815.
  3. Bartels, L. M. 1991. Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup, The American Political Science Review 85(2): 457-474.
  4. Bernauer, J., Giger, N. and Rosset, J. 2010. The Substantial Representation of Subconstituency Interests in European Democracies, a paper prepared for the Repcong Workshop, May 28-29 2010 (URL: http://repcong.univie.ac.at/sites/default/files/Bernauer_Giger_Rosset.pdf) March 14, 2014.
  5. Belchior, A. M. 2010. Ideological Congruence Among European Political Parties, The Journal of Legislative Studies 16(1): 121-142.
  6. Belchior, A. M. and Freire, A. 2012. Is Party Type Relevant to an Explanation of Policy Congruence? Catchall Versus Ideological Parties in the Portuguese Case, International Political Science Review 34(3): 273-288.
  7. Bird, K. 2003. The Political Representation of Women and Ethnic Minorities in Established Democ-racies: A Framework for Comparative Research. Working Paper presented for the Academy of Migration studies in Denmark (AMID). Available at: http://www.outcome-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Karen-Bird-amidpaper.pdf (accessed 30 March 2012).
  8. Bohn, H. G. 1987. The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 1854-1856. Available at: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/vlchl3s7.html (accessed 18 April 2012).
  9. Carmines, E. G. and Wagner, M. W. 2006. Political Issues and Party Alignments: Assessing the Issue Evolution Perspective, Annual Review of Political Science 9: 67-81.
  10. Casado-Asensio, J. and Lefkofridi, Z. 2011. Representation in the European Union: Congruence between Citizens and Elites in the European Parliament's Two-Level Setting, Perspectives on European Politics & Society 12(2): 161-179.
  11. Clinton, J. D. 2006. Representation in Congress: Constituency and Roll Calls in the 106th House, Journal of Politics 68(2): 397-409.
  12. Cnudde, Ch. F. and McCrone, D. S. 1966. The Linkage between Constituency Attitudes and Congressional Voting Behavior: A Causal Model, The American Political Science Review 60(1): 66-72.
  13. Converse, P. E. and Pierce, R. 1986. Political Representation in France. Cambridge and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  14. Curtice, J. and Shively, P. W. 2009. Who Represents Us Best? One Member or Many? in: Hans-Dieter Klingemann (ed.), The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Dalton, R. J. 2008. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. 5th ed. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
  16. Dalton, R. J. 1985. Political Parties and Political Representation, Comparative Political Studies 18(3): 267-299.
  17. Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
  18. Downs, A. 1972. Up and Down with Ecology - the Issue-Attention Cycle, Public Interest 28: 38.
  19. Epstein, L. and Knight, J. 1998. The Choices Justices Make, Congressional Quarterly. Washington DC.
  20. Erikson, R. S. 1978. Constituency Opinion and Congressional Behavior: A Reexamination of the Miller-Stokes Representation Data, The American Journal of Political Science 22(3): 511-535.
  21. Esaiasson, P. & Holmberg, S. 1996. Representation from Above: Members of Parliament and Representative Democracy in Sweden. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
  22. Eulau, H. and Wahlke, J. C. 1978. The Politics of Representation: Continuities in Theory and Research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
  23. Eulau, H. 1987. The Congruence Model Revisited, Legislative Studies Quarterly 12(2): 171-214.
  24. Fenno, R. F. 1978. Home Style: Representatives in Their Districts. Boston: Little Brown.
  25. Fiorina, M. P. 1974. Representatives, Roll Calls and Constituencies. Lexington: Lexington Books.
  26. Giger, N. 2009. Personal Salience and Political Representation: A Micro-Foundation of Some Empirical Evidence. Available at: http://repcong.univie.ac.at/?q=node/24 (accessed 12 March 2012).
  27. Golder, M. and Stramski, J. 2008. Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions: Conceptualization and Measurement. Available at: https://files.nyu.edu/mrg217/public/congruence_final.pdf (accessed 30 March 2012).
  28. Grofman, B. and Lijphart, A. 1986. Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon.
  29. Hawes, D. P. 2009. Salience, Representation and Political Responsiveness: The Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, The Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL. Available at: http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/6/1/6/1/pages361618/p361618-l.php (accessed 26 March 2012).
  30. Holmberg, S. 1989. Political Representation in Sweden, Scandinavian Political Studies 12(1): 1-36.
  31. Huber, J. D. and Powell, B. G. Jr. 1994. Congruence Between Citizens and Policymakers in Two Visions of Liberal Democracy, World Politics 46(3): 291-326.
  32. Kitschelt, H., Mansfeldova, Z., Markowski, R. and Toka, G. 1999. Post-Communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation and Inter-Party Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Klingemann, H-D. 1995. Party Positions and Voter Orientations, in: H-D. Klingemann and D. Fuchs (eds.), Citizens and the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  34. Klingemann, H-D., Fuchs, D. and Zielonka, J. 2006. Democracy and Political Culture in Eastern Europe. Milton: Routledge.
  35. Kuklinski, J. H. 1977. Constituency Opinion: A Test of the Surrogate Model, Public Opinion Quarterly 41(1): 34-40.
  36. Kuklinski, J. H. and McCrone, D. J. 1980. Policy Salience and the Causal Structure of Representation, American Politics Quarterly 8(2): 139-164.
  37. Lavine, H., Sullivan, J. T., Borgida, E., Thomsen, C. J. 1996. The Relationship of National and Personal Issue Salience to Attitude Accessibility on Foreign and Domestic Policy Issues, Political Psychology 17(2): 293-316.
  38. Lefkofridi, Z. and Katsanidou, A. 2013. Multilevel Representation in the European Parliament, European Union Politics 15(1): 1-24.
  39. Lijphart, A. 1990. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws 1945-85, The American Political Science Review 85(2): 481-496.
  40. Mair, P. and Thomassen, J. (eds.). 2011. Political Representation and European Union Governance. Milton Park: Routledge.
  41. Manin, B. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Markowski, R. and Tucker, J. 2010. Euroscepticism and the Emergence of Political Parties in Poland, Party Politics 16(4): 523-548.
  43. McCrone, D. and Kuklinski, J. H. 1979. The Delegate Theory of Representation, American Journal of Political Science 23(2): 278-300.
  44. McDonald, M., Budge, I. and Pennings, P. 2004. Choice Versus Sensitivity: Party Reactions to Public Concerns, European Journal of Political Research 43: 845-868.
  45. Miller, W. E. and Stokes, D. E. 1963. Constituency Influence in Congress, The American Political Science Review 57(1): 45-56.
  46. Norris, Pippa. 1995. May's Law of Curvilinear Disparity Revisited, Party Politics 1(1): 29-47.
  47. Norris, P. and Lovenduski, J. 1995. Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  48. Nyhan B., McGhee, E., Sides, J., Masket, S. and Greene, S. 2012. One Vote Out of Step? The Effects of Salient Roll Call Votes in the 2010 Election, American Politics Research XX(X): 1-36.
  49. Page, B. I. and Shapiro, R. Y. 1983. Effects of Public Opinion on Policy, The American Political Science Review 77(1): 175-190.
  50. Page, B. I., Shapiro, R. Y., Gronke, P. W. and Rosenberg, R. M. 1984. Constituency, Party and Representation in Congress, The Public Opinion Quarterly 48(4): 741-756.
  51. Pennings, P. 2005. Parties, Voters, and Policy Priorities in the Netherlands, 1971-2002, Party Politics 11(1): 29-45.
  52. Phillips, A. 1993. Democracy and Difference. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  53. Pierce, R. 1999. Mass-Elite Issue Linkages and the Responsible Party Model of Representation, in: W. E. Miller, R. Pierce, J. Thomassen, R. Herrera, S. Holmberg, P. Esaiasson, B. Wessels, Policy Representation in Western Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  54. Pitkin, H. F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California.
  55. Powell, B. G. Jr. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
  56. Rae, D. 1971. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  57. RePass, D. E. 1971. Issue Salience and Party Choice, American Political Science Review 65(2): 389-400.
  58. Schattschneider, E. E. 1942. Party Government. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Wilson.
  59. Shugart, M. S. and Wallenberg, M. P. 2001. Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. The Best of Both Worlds? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  60. Schmitt, H. and Thomassen, J. 1999. Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  61. Spirova, M. and Stefanova, B. 2009. The European Dimension of the Political Representation of Minorities. EUSA Conferences, Los Angeles, CA. Available at: http://www.euce.org/eusa2009/papers/stefanova_11I.pdf (accessed 2 April 2012).
  62. Szelényi, I., Fodor, E. and Hanley, E. 1996. Left Turn in Post-Communist Politics: Bringing Class Back In? East European Politics and Societies 11: 190-224.
  63. Taagepera, R. and Shugart, M. S. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  64. Todosiević, B. 2005. Issues and Party Preferences in Hungary: A Comparison of Directional and Proximity Models, Party Politics 11(1): 109-126.
  65. Tóka, G. 1997. Political Parties and Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe, Studies in Public Policy (279). Available at: http://www.personal.ceu.hu/staff/Gabor_Toka/Papers/Toka97Consolidation.pdf (accessed 22 April 2012).
  66. Tóka, G. 2002. Issue Voting and Party System in Central and Eastern Europe, in: D. Fuchs, E. Roller and B. Wessels (eds.), Citizens and Democracy in East and West. Studies in Political Culture and the Political Process. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Available at: http://www.personal.ceu.hu/staff/Gabor_Toka/Papers/Toka02Festschrift.pdf (accessed 15 April 2012).
  67. Tremblay, M. 2005. Women's Political Representation: Does the Electoral System Matter? Political Science (57)1: 59-75.
  68. Tworzecki, H. 2003. Learning to Choose: Electoral Politics in East-Central Europe. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  69. Urbinati, N. 2006. Representative Democracy Principles and Genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  70. Weissberg, R. 1978. Collective Versus Dyadic Representation in Congress, The American Political Science Review 72(1): 535-547.
  71. Weissberg, R. 1976. Public Opinion and Popular Government. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
  72. Wlezien, Ch. 2005. On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with "Most Important Problem", Electoral Studies 24: 555-579.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
1231-1413
Język
eng
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu