Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:34:46.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The legislative representation of public opinion policy priorities in Italy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2018

Francesco Visconti
Francesco Visconti*
Affiliation:
Department of Social, Political and Cognitive Sciences, Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Normative democratic theory requires political actors in parliament and government to represent not only the citizens’ policy preferences, but also their issue priorities. This article investigates Italian dynamic agenda representation – the transmission of public priorities into the policy priorities of the Italian political system. To assess the public’s policy priorities, data on the Most Important Problem from the Eurobarometer polls are used, while the legislative agendas of the members of parliament (MPs) and government are built following the rules of the Comparative Agendas Project. The results of longitudinal analyses across 10 policy areas and 20 semesters (2003–13) suggest a persistent link between the public’s agenda and the prioritization of legislation by the Italian parliament, majority MPs, and government. Contrary to expectations, the opposition does not seem to be responsive to public opinion policy problems when introducing bills.

Keywords

agenda settingpublic opinionrepresentationpublic policyItaly
Type
Research Article
Information
Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica , Volume 48 , Special Issue 3: Policy Agendas in Italy , November 2018 , pp. 307 - 326
Copyright
© Società Italiana di Scienza Politica 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

Achen, C.H. (2000), ‘Why lagged dependent variables can suppress the explanatory power of other independent variables’. Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association, UCLA, July, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Adams, J. (2016), ‘On the relationship between (parties’ and voters’) issue attention and their issue positions: response to Dowding, Hindmoor and Martin’, Journal of Public Policy 36(1): 25–31.Google Scholar
Andeweg, R.B. and Nijzink, L. (1995), ‘Beyond the two-body image: relations between ministers and MPs’, in H. Döring (ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, Frankfurt: Campus/St. Martin’s Press, pp. 152–178.Google Scholar
Arellano, M. (1987), ‘Practitioners’ corner: computing robust standard errors for within‐groups estimators’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 49(4): 431–434.Google Scholar
Arnold, C. and Franklin, M.N. (2012), ‘Introduction: issue congruence and political responsiveness’, West European Politics 35(6): 1217–1225.Google Scholar
Bakker, R., de Vries, C., Edwards, E., Hooghe, L., Jolly, S., Marks, G., Polk, J., Rovny, J., Steenbergen, M. and Vachudova, M. (2015), ‘Measuring party positions in Europe: the Chapel Hill Expert Survey trend file, 1999–2010’, Party Politics 21(1): 143–152.Google Scholar
Bartle, J., Dellepiane-Avellaneda, S. and Stimson, J. (2011), ‘The moving centre: preferences for government activity in Britain, 1950–2005’, British Journal of Political Science 41(2): 259–285.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F.R. (2016), ‘Creating an infrastructure for comparative policy analysis’, Governance 30(1): 59–65.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F.R. and Jones, B.D. (2015), The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F.R., Jones, B.D. and Wilkerson, J. (2011), ‘Comparative studies of policy dynamics’, Comparative Political Studies 44(8): 947–972.Google Scholar
Beck, N. and Katz, J.N. (1995), ‘What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data’, American Political Science Review 89(3): 634–647.Google Scholar
Bellucci, P. (2012), ‘Government accountability and voting choice in Italy, 1990–2008’, Electoral Studies 31(3): 491–497.Google Scholar
Bellucci, P. and Isernia, P. (1999), ‘Opinione pubblica e politica estera in Italia: il caso della Bosnia’, Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 29(3): 441–480.Google Scholar
Bellucci, P. and Pellegata, A. (2017), ‘Citizens’ policy mood, policies and election outcomes in Italy’, Contemporary Italian Politics 9(1): 8–29.Google Scholar
Bertelli, A.M. and John, P. (2013), ‘Public policy investment: risk and return in British politics’, British Journal of Political Science 43(4): 741–773.Google Scholar
Bevan, S. and Jennings, W. (2014), ‘Representation, agendas and institutions’, European Journal of Political Research 53(1): 37–56.Google Scholar
Blau, A. (2008), ‘The effective number of parties at four scales: votes, seats, legislative power and cabinet power’, Party Politics 14(2): 167–187.Google Scholar
Bonafont, L.C. and Palau, A.M. (2011), ‘Assessing the responsiveness of Spanish policymakers to the priorities of their citizens’, West European Politics 34(4): 706–730.Google Scholar
Borghetto, E. and Carammia, M. (2010), ‘L’analisi Comparata Delle Agende Politiche: Il Comparative Agendas Project’, Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 2: 301–315.Google Scholar
Borghetto, E. and Giuliani, M. (2012), ‘A long way to Tipperary: time in the Italian legislative process 1987–2008’, South European Society and Politics 17(1): 23–44.Google Scholar
Borghetto, E. and Carammia, M. (2015), ‘Party priorities, government formation and the making of the executive agenda’, in N. Conti and F. Marangoni (eds), The Challenge of Coalition Government: The Italian Case, Vol. 111 London: Routledge, pp. 36.Google Scholar
Borghetto, E., Carammia, M. and Zucchini, F. (2014), ‘The impact of party policy priorities on Italian law-making from the first to the Second Republic, 1983–2006’, in C. Green-Pedersen and S. Walgrave (eds), Agenda Setting, Policies, and Political Systems: A Comparative Approach, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 164–182.Google Scholar
Borghetto, E., Visconti, F. and Michieli, M. (2017), ‘Government agenda-setting in Italian coalitions. Testing the “partisan hypothesis” using Italian investiture speeches 1979–2014’, Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche 2: 193–220.Google Scholar
Borghetto, E., Curini, L., Giuliani, M., Pellegata, A. and Zucchini, F. (2012), ‘Italian law-making archive: a new tool for the analysis of the Italian legislative process’, Rivista italiana di scienza politica 42(3): 481–502.Google Scholar
Brooks, J.E. (1985), ‘Democratic frustration in the Anglo-American polities: a quantification of inconsistency between mass public opinion and public policy’, Western Political Quarterly 38(2): 250–261.Google Scholar
Brooks, J.E. (1990), ‘The opinion–policy nexus in Germany’, Public Opinion Quarterly 54(4): 508–529.Google Scholar
Brunner, M. (2012), Parliaments and Legislative Activity: Motivations for Bill Introduction, Konstanz: Springer Science & Business Media and VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Budge, I. (2015), ‘Issue emphases, saliency theory and issue ownership: a historical and conceptual analysis’, West European Politics 38(4): 761–777.Google Scholar
Burstein, P. (2003), ‘The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda’, Political Research Quarterly 56(1): 29–40.Google Scholar
Capano, G. and Giuliani, M. eds. (2001), Parlamento e processo legislativo in Italia. Continuità e mutamento, Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Cohen, J.E. (1999), Presidential Responsiveness and Public Policy-Making: The Public and the Policies that Presidents Choose, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Cotta, M. and Marangoni, F. (2015), Il governo, Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (2006), On Political Equality, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Diamanti, I. (2006), ‘Il trionfo della democrazia del pubblico?’, Comunicazione Politica 7(2): 229–248.Google Scholar
Di Palma, G. (1977), Surviving Without Governing: The Italian Parties in Parliament, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, R.S., MacKuen, M.B. and Stimson, J.A. (2002), The Macro Polity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M.P. (1981), Retrospective Voting in American National Elections, Vol. 5 New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Giuliani, M. (2005), ‘Il senso del limite: problemi aperti nell’analisi del legislativo’, Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche 3: 15–55.Google Scholar
Giuliani, M. and Capano, G. (2001), ‘I labirinti del legislativo’, in G. Capano and M. Giuliani (eds), Parlamento e processo legislativo in Italia. Continuità e mutamento , Bologna: Il Mulino, pp. 13–54.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C. (2010), ‘Bringing parties into parliament: the development of parliamentary activities in western Europe’, Party Politics 16: 347–369.Google Scholar
Hakhverdian, A. (2010), ‘Political representation and its mechanisms: a dynamic left–right approach for the United Kingdom, 1976–2006’, British Journal of Political Science 40(4): 835–856.Google Scholar
Hinich, M.J. and Munger, M.C. (1997), Analytical Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobolt, S.B. and Klemmensen, R. (2005), ‘Responsive government? Public opinion and government policy preferences in Britain and Denmark’, Political Studies 53(2): 379–402.Google Scholar
Hobolt, S.B. and Klemmensen, R. (2008), ‘Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective’, Comparative Political Studies 41(3): 309–337.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (1983), ‘Using bureaucracy sparingly’, Public Administration 61(2): 197–208.Google Scholar
Isernia, P. (2008), ‘Present at creation: Italian mass support for European integration in the formative years’, European Journal of Political Research 47(3): 383–410.Google Scholar
Isernia, P., Juhasz, Z. and Rattinger, H. (2002), ‘Foreign policy and the rational public in comparative perspective’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 46(2): 201–224.Google Scholar
Jennings, W. and Wlezien, C. (2015), ‘Preferences, problems and representation’, Political Science Research and Methods 3(3): 659–681.Google Scholar
Jones, B.D. (1994), Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, B.D. and Baumgartner, F.R. (2004), ‘Representation and agenda setting’, Policy Studies Journal 32(1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Jones, B.D. and Baumgartner, F.R. (2005), The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, B.D., Larsen-Price, H. and Wilkerson, J. (2009), ‘Representation and American governing institutions’, Journal of Politics 71(1): 277–290.Google Scholar
Kreppel, A. (2009), ‘Executive–legislative relations and legislative agenda setting in Italy: From Leggine to Decreti and Deleghe’, Bulletin of Italian Politics 1(2): 183–209.Google Scholar
Laakso, M. and Taagepera, R. (1979), ‘Effective number of parties: a measure with application to west Europe’, Comparative Political Studies 12(1): 3–27.Google Scholar
Levin, A., Lin, C.-F. and Chu, C.-S.J. (2002), ‘Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties’, Journal of Econometrics 108: 1–24.Google Scholar
Lindeboom, G.-J. (2012), ‘Public priorities in government’s hands: corresponding policy agendas in the Netherlands?’, Acta Politica 47(4): 443–467.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (2003), ‘Rethinking representation’, American Political Science Review 97(4): 515–528.Google Scholar
Marangoni, F. (2013), Provare a governare, cercando di sopravvivere: esecutivi e attività legislativa nella seconda repubblica, Pisa: Pisa University Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, M. D., Budge, I. and Pennings, P. (2004), ‘Choice versus sensitivity: party reactions to public concerns’, European Journal of Political Research 43(6): 845–868.Google Scholar
Memoli, V. (2013), ‘Responsiveness’, in L. Morlino, D. Piana and F. Raniolo (eds), La qualità della democrazia in Italia, Bologna: Il Mulino, pp. 433–449.Google Scholar
Müller, W.C. and Strøm, K. (eds) (1999), Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Page, B.I. and Shapiro, R.Y. (1983), ‘Effects of public opinion on policy’, American Political Science Review 77(1): 175–190.Google Scholar
Page, B.I. and Shapiro, R.Y. (1992), The Rational Public, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pennings, P. (2005), ‘Parties, voters and policy priorities in the Netherlands, 1971–2002’, Party Politics 11(1): 29–45.Google Scholar
Plott, C.R. (1991), ‘Will economics become an experimental science?’, Southern Economic Journal 57(4): 901–919.Google Scholar
Putnam, R.D. and Penniman, H.R. (1977), ‘Italian foreign policy: the emergent consensus’, in H.B. Penniman (ed.), Italy at the Polls: The Parliamentary Election of 1976, Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, pp. 287–326.Google Scholar
Reher, S. (2015), ‘The effects of congruence in policy priorities on satisfaction with democracy’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 26(1): 40–57.Google Scholar
Russo, F. and Verzichelli, L. (2012), ‘Parliament and citizens in Italy: an unfilled gap’, Journal of Legislative Studies 18(3–4): 351–367.Google Scholar
Russo, F. and Cavalieri, A. (2016), ‘The policy content of the Italian question time. A new dataset to study party competition’, Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche 11(2): 197–222.Google Scholar
Russo, F. and Verzichelli, L. (2016), ‘Government ideology and party priorities: the determinants of public spending changes in Italy’, Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 46(3): 269–290.Google Scholar
Soroka, S.N. and Wlezien, C. (2010), Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, J.A., Mackuen, M.B. and Erikson, R.S. (1995), ‘Dynamic representation’, American Political Science Review 89(3): 543–565.Google Scholar
Ström, K., Müller, W. and Bergman, T. (eds) (2003), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vliegenthart, R. and Walgrave, S. (2011), ‘Content matters: the dynamics of parliamentary questioning in Belgium and Denmark’, Comparative Political Studies 44(8): 1031–1059.Google Scholar
Vliegenthart, R., Walgrave, S. and Zicha, B. (2013), ‘How preferences, information and institutions interactively drive agenda‐setting: questions in the Belgian Parliament, 1993–2000’, European Journal of Political Research 52(3): 390–418.Google Scholar
Vliegenthart, R., Walgrave, S., Baumgartner, F.R., Bevan, S., Breunig, C., Brouard, S., Bonafont, L.C., Grossman, E., Jennings, W., Mortensen, P.B., Palau, A.M., Sciarini, P. and Tresch, A. (2016), ‘Do the media set the parliamentary agenda? A comparative study in seven countries’, European Journal of Political Research 55: 283–301.Google Scholar
Wilkins, A.S. (2017), ‘To lag or not to lag? Re-evaluating the use of lagged dependent variables in regression analysis’, Political Science Research and Methods 4: 1–19.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. (1996), ‘Dynamics of representation: the case of US spending on defence’, British Journal of Political Science 26(1): 81–103.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. (2005), ‘On the salience of political issues: the problem with most important problem’, Electoral Studies 24(4): 555–579.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. and Soroka, S.N. (2007), ‘The relationship between public opinion and policy’, in R.J. Dalton and H. Klingemann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 799–816.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. and Soroka, S.N (2012), ‘Political institutions and the opinion–policy link’, West European Politics 35(6): 1407–1432.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Visconti supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Visconti supplementary material(File)
File 52 KB