Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T22:43:54.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opinion Representation and Policy Feedback: Canada in Comparative Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2005

Stuart N. Soroka  and
Christopher Wlezien
Stuart N. Soroka
Affiliation:
McGill University
Christopher Wlezien
Affiliation:
Oxford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Work exploring the relationship between public opinion and public policy over time has largely been restricted to the US. However, a wider application of this line of research can provide valuable insights into whether and how representation varies across political systems. This paper takes a step in this direction using a new body of data on public opinion and government spending in Canada. Analyses reveal that the Canadian public notices and responds (thermostatically) to changes in public spending in particular domains, and also that Canadian policymakers represent these public preferences in spending. The extent and nature of public responsiveness and policy representation varies across domains. Relationships are more pronounced in certain domains, and they are more ‘specific’ in some domains and more ‘global’ in others. The findings generally accord with the results of similar work in the US and the UK, although the details differ in important ways. Indeed, the differences are strongly suggestive about the structuring role of institutions.

Résumé. Les travaux portant sur la relation entre l'opinion publique et les politiques publiques se sont longtemps limités surtout aux États-Unis. Cependant, l'élargissement de cette piste de recherche peut fournir de précieuses connaissances sur les variations de la représentation au sein des systèmes politiques. Cette étude s'oriente dans cette direction en utilisant un nouveau corpus de données sur l'opinion publique et les dépenses du gouvernement au Canada. Les analyses révèlent que, dans certains domaines, la population canadienne observe les changements liés aux dépenses publiques et y réagit (de façon thermostatique) et que les décisionnaires canadiens traduisent les préférences de la population dans les dépenses. La portée et la nature de la réceptivité de la population ainsi que la représentation des politiques varient d'un domaine à l'autre. Les connexions sont plus étroites dans certains domaines, plus “ spécifiques ” dans d'autres et enfin, plus “ globales ” dans d'autres encore. En général, les résultats sont en accord avec ceux des travaux similaires menés aux États-Unis et au Royaume-Uni, malgré des différences importantes sur certains points de détail. En fait, les différences sont très évocatrices du rôle structurant des institutions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 531 - 559
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

Arceneaux, Kevin. 2003. The Federal Face of Democratic Representation: The Effects of Responsibility Attribution on Cross-Level Voting Behavior and Government Responsiveness in the United States. Doctoral dissertation. Rice University, Houston.
Bagehot, Walter. 1867 (1966). The English Constitution. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Bartels, Larry M. 1991. “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defence Buildup.” American Political Science Review 85: 429–456.Google Scholar
Blais, Andre, Donald Blake and Stephane Dion. 1993. “Do Parties Make a Difference? Parties and the Size of Government in Liberal Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 37(1): 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, Andre, Donald Blake and Stephene Dion. 1996. “Do Parties Make a Difference: A Reappraisal.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 514–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, J.E. 1987. “The Opinion-Policy Nexus in France—Do Institutions and Ideology Make a Difference?” Journal of Politics 49: 465–80.Google Scholar
Brooks, J.E. 1990. “The Opinion-Policy Nexus in Germany.” Public Opinion Quarterly 54: 508–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, Paul. 2003. “The Impact of Public Opinion on Policy: A Review and Agenda.” Political Research Quarterly 56: 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, Karl. 1963. Nerves of Government. New York: Free Press.
Downs, William M. 1999. “Accountability Payoffs in Federal Systems? Competing Logics and Evidence from Europe's Newest Federation.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 29: 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durr, Robert H. 1993. “What Moves Policy Sentiment?” American Political Science Review 87: 158–70.Google Scholar
Easton, David. 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Eichenberg, Richard and Richard Stoll. 2003. “Representing Defence: Democratic Control of the Defence Budget in the United States and Western Europe.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 47: 399–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Michael MacKuen and James A. Stimson. 2002 The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Franklin, Mark N. 2004. Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Franklin, Mark and Wolfgang Hirczy. 1998. “Separated Powers, Divided Government, and Turnout in US Presidential Elections”. American Journal of Political Science 42: 316–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Mark and Christopher Wlezien. 1997. “The Responsive Public: Issue Salience, Policy Change, and Preferences for European Unification.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 9: 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goggin, Malcolm and Christopher Wlezien. 1993. “Abortion Opinion and Policy in the American States.” In Understanding the New Politics of Abortion, ed. Malcolm Goggin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hartley, Thomas and Bruce Russett. 1992. “Public Opinion and the Common Defence: Who Governs Military Spending in the United States?” American Political Science Review 86: 905–915.Google Scholar
Heise, D.R. 1969. “Separating Reliability and Stability in Test-Retest Correlations.” American Sociological Review 34: 93–101.Google Scholar
Jankowski, Richard and Christopher Wlezien. 1993. “Substitutability and the Politics of Macroeconomic Policy.” Journal of Politics 55: 1060–1080.Google Scholar
Jennings, Sir Ivor. 1959. Cabinet Government, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, Bryan. 2001. Politics and Architecture of Choice: Bounded Rationality and Governance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Joumard, Isabelle and Per Mathis Kongsrud. 2003. “Fiscal Relations Across Government Levels.” Economics Department Working Papers (no. 375). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, document available at http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2003doc.nsf/linkto/eco-wkp(2003)29; site last accessed 15 June 2004.
Kiewiet, D. Roderick and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1988. “Presidential Influence on Congressional Appropriations Decisions.” American Journal of Political Science 32: 713–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael and Kenneth A. Shepsle. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Manza, Jeff and Fay Lomax Cook. 2002. “Policy Responsiveness to Public Opinion: The State of the Debate.” In Navigating Public Opinion: Polls, Policy, and the Future of American Democracy, eds. Jeff Manza, Fay Lomax Cook and Benjamin I. Page. New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, Warren E. and Donald E. Stokes. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57: 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, Alan. 1979. “Consistency between Constituency Preferences and National Policy Decisions.” American Politics Quarterly 12: 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, Alan. 1998. “Public Opinion and Public Policy 1980–1993.” Public Opinion Quarterly 62: 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I. and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1992. The Rational Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Petry, Francois. 1999. “The Opinion-Policy Relationship in Canada.” Journal of Politics 61: 540–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petry, Francois and Matthew Mendelsohn. 2004. “Public Opinion and Policy Making in Canada, 1994–2001.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37: 505–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Savoie, Donald J. 1999. Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Sharpe, Elaine. 1999. The Sometime Connection: Public Opinion and Social Policy. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.
Smith, M.A. 1999. “Public Opinion, Elections, and Representation within a Market Economy: Does the Structural Power of Business Undermine Popular Sovereignty?” American Journal of Political Science 43: 842–863.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. 2003. “Media, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy.” Harvard International Journal of Press and Politics 8(1): 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. and Christopher Wlezien. N.d. “Opinion-Policy Dynamics: Public Preferences and Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom.” British Journal of Political Science, forthcoming.
Soroka, Stuart N. and Christopher Wlezien. 2004. “Degrees of Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in Comparative Perspective.” Center for Advanced Study in the Social Sciences Working Paper Series. Madrid: Juan March Institute.
Statistics Canada. 2002. Financial Management System (FMS) 2002. Canada: Minister of Industry.
Stimson, James A., Michael B. MacKuen and Robert S. Erikson. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89: 543–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Weakliem, David. 2003. “Public Opinion Research and Political Sociology.” Research in Political Sociology 12: 49–80.CrossRefGoogle 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. 1996a. “Dynamics of Representation: The Case of U.S. Spending on Defence.” British Journal of Political Science 26: 81–103.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1996b. “The President, Congress, and Appropriations, 1951–1985.” American Politics Quarterly 24: 43–67.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 2004. “Patterns of Representation: Dynamics of Public Preferences and Policy.” Journal of Politics 66: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher and Stuart Soroka. 2003. “Measures and Models of Budgetary Policy.” Policy Studies Journal 31: 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar