Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T05:03:05.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Party-constrained Policy Responsiveness: A Survey Experiment on Politicians’ Response to Citizen-initiated Contacts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2015

Patrik Öhberg  and
Elin Naurin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How do individual party representatives respond to direct policy requests from citizens when the requests go against the party’s position? In a survey experiment, 2,547 Swedish politicians are randomly assigned to scenarios in which citizens make contact to influence a political decision. Their willingness to respond to citizens’ policy requests is measured using six indicators that capture adaptive as well as communicative responsiveness. The results show a lower willingness to adapt and to communicate when the request disagrees with the party’s position. The effect is mitigated when politicians agree with the proposal and when likely voters make contact, but only for listening and adaptive responses, not for explaining responses (which have the opposite relationship). Important findings for future research are that the party matters for politicians’ responsiveness and that their willingness to give explaining responses follows a different logic than for listening and adaptive responses.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 785 - 797
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg (emails [email protected], [email protected]). The order of the authors’ names does not describe the contribution made to the article. Both authors have contributed equally to the manuscript. Support for this research was provided by the Swedish Research Council, the COFAS Marie Curie Fellowship Program and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. We are indebted to the Laboratory of Opinion Research, University of Gothenburg, as well as to the Center for the Study of Democratic Citizenship in Quebec. The authors would like to thank André Blais, Damien Bol, Daniel M. Butler, Delia Dumitrescu, Peter Esaiasson, Stuart Soroka and Dietlind Stolle. Data replication sets and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123415000010.

References

Aars, Jacob, and Strømsnes, Kristin. 2007. Contacting as a Channel of Political Involvement: Collectively Motivated, Individually Enacted. West European Politics 30 (1):93–120.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Glasgow, Garrett. 2004. Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to Past Election Results? British Journal of Political Science 34 (4):589–610.Google Scholar
Adams, F. James, Merrill, Samuel III, and Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition. A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ashworth, Scott. 2005. Reputational Dynamics and Political Careers. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 21 (2):441–466.Google Scholar
Brettschneider, Frank. 1996. Public Opinion and Parliamentary Action: Responsiveness of the German Bundestag in Comparative Perspective. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 8 (3):292–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, David 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, Ian, ed. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments, 1945-1998, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2012. A Field Experiment on Legislators’ Home Styles: Service Versus Policy. Journal of Politics 74 (2):474–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Broockman, David E.. 2011. Do Politicians Racially Discriminate Against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators. American Journal of Political Science 55 (3):463–477.Google Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Nickerson, David W.. 2011. Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 6 (1):55–83.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce E., Ferejohn, John A., and Fiorina, Morris P.. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John M. 2007. Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science 51 (1):92–107.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Entman, Robert M. 1983. The Impact of Ideology on Legislative Behavior and Public Policy in the States. The Journal of Politics 45 (1):163–182.Google Scholar
Esaiasson, Peter, Gilljam, Mikael, and Persson, Mikael. 2013. Communicative Responsiveness and Other Central Concepts in Between-Election Democracy. In Between-Election Democracy. The Representative Relationship After Election Day, edited by Peter Esaiasson and Hanne Marthe Narud, 15–33. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Esaiasson, Peter, and Holmberg, Sören. 1996. Representation from Above. Members of Parliament and Representative Democracy in Sweden. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Esaiasson, Peter, and Narud, Hanne Marthe, eds. 2013. Between-Election Democracy. The Representative Relationship After Election Day. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Fitch, Brad, and Goldschmidt, Kathy. 2005. Communicating with Congress: How Capitol Hill is Coping with the Surge in Citizen Advocacy. Washington, DC: Congressional Management Foundation.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., and Shachar, Ron. 2003. Voting May Be Habit-Forming: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment. American Journal of Political Science 47 (3):540–550.Google Scholar
Gilljam, Mikael, Karlsson, David, and Sundell, Anders. 2010. Representationsprinciper i Riksdag och kommuner. In Folkets representanter. En bok om riksdagsledamöter och politisk representation i Sverige (Principles of Representation in Parliament and Municipalities. In The Representatives of the People. On Members of the Parliament and Political Representation in Sweden), edited by Martin Brothén and Sören Holmberg, 35–64. Gothenburg: Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, Kathy, and Ochreiter, Leslie. 2008. Communicating with Congress: How the Internet has Changed Citizen Engagement. Washington, DC: Congressional Management Foundation.Google Scholar
Grose, Christian R. 2014. Field Experimental Work on Political Institutions. Annual Review of Political Science 17:355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harden, Jeffrey J. 2013. Multidimensional Responsiveness: The Determinants of Legislators’ Representational Priorities. Legislative Studies Quarterly 38 (2):155–184.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Marc, and Marien, Sofie. 2012. How to Reach Members of Parliament? Citizens and Members of Parliament on the Effectiveness of Political Participation Repertoires. Parliamentary Affairs 67 (1):1–25.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. 1973. Competitiveness, Role Orientations, and Legislative Responsiveness. Journal of Politics 35 (4):924–947.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernhard, Przeworski, Adam, and Stokes, Susan C.. 1999. Introduction. In Democracy, Accountability and Representation, edited by Adam Przeworski, Susan Stokes and Bernhard Manin, 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. Constituency Influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57:165–177.Google Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang C. 2000. Political Parties in Parliamentary Democracies: Making Delegation and Accountability Work. European Journal of Political Research 37 (3):309–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öhberg, Patrik, and Wängnerud, Lena. 2013. Testing the Impact of Political Generations: The Class of 94 and Pro Feminist Ideas in the Swedish Riksdag. Scandinavian Political Studies 37 (1):61–81.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Liz. 2013. ‘We Need to Decide!’ A Mixed Method Approach to Responsiveness and Equal Treatment. In Between Election Democracy: The Representative Relationship After Election Day, edited by Peter Esaiasson and Hanne Marthe Narud, 171–188. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Liz, and John, Peter. 2012. Who Listens to the Grass Roots? A Field Experiment on Informational Lobbying in the UK. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 14 (4):595–612.Google Scholar
SCB. 2011. Förtroendevalda i kommuner och landsting. Demokratistatistik rapport 12, (Elected Representatives in Municipalities and Regions. Democratic Statistics Report 12). Stockholm: Statistics Sweden.Google Scholar
Skjaeveland, Asbjørn. 2001. Party Cohesion in the Danish Parliament. Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (2):35–56.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A., MacKuen, Michael B., and Erikson, Robert S.. 1995. Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review 89 (3):543–565.Google Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2009. The Making of Mavericks Local Loyalties and Party Defection. Comparative Political Studies 42 (6):793–815.Google Scholar
Thomas, John Clayton, and Melkers, Julis E.. 2001. Citizen Contacting of Municipal Officials: Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11 (1):51–72.Google Scholar
Uba, Katrin. 2015. Protest Against the School Closures in Sweden: Accepted by Politicians? In The Consequences of Social Movements, edited by Lorenzo Bosi, Marco Giugni and Katrin Uba, Chapter 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Öhberg and Naurin supplementary material S1

Öhberg and Naurin supplementary material S1

Download Öhberg and Naurin supplementary material S1(File)
File 176.5 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Öhberg and Naurin supplementary material S2

Appendix

Download Öhberg and Naurin supplementary material S2(PDF)
PDF 179.7 KB