Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:31:40.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preferences, Problems and Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2015

Will Jennings  and
Christopher Wlezien
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scholars studying opinion representation often rely on a survey question that asks about the “most important problem” (MIP) facing the nation. While it is known that MIP responses reflect public priorities, less is known about their connection to policy preferences. This article directly addresses the issue. First, it conceptualizes policy preferences and MIP responses, specifically considering the possibility that the latter may be either policy or outcome based. Second, using aggregate-level data from the United States and the United Kingdom, it then examines the correspondence between public spending preferences and MIP responses over time. The results indicate that MIP responses and spending preferences tap very different things, and that using MIP responses substantially understates the representational relationship between public opinion and policy.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 659 - 681
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 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.)

Footnotes

*

Will Jennings is Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom ([email protected]). Christopher Wlezien is Hogg Professor of Government, Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1704 USA ([email protected]). Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Annual Meeting of the Elections, Public Opinion and Parties Group of the UK Political Studies Association, Oxford, 2012; the Annual Meeting of the Comparative Agendas Project, Antwerp, 2013; and the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, 2015. We are grateful to Shaun Bevan, Christian Breunig, Christoffer Green-Pedersen, Bryan Jones, Peter Mortensen and the anonymous reviewers as well as our editor, Vera Troeger, for their constructive comments. Online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.3.

References

Achen, Christopher H. 1990. ‘What Does “Explained Variance” Explain? Reply’. Political Analysis 2(1):173–184.Google Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C.. 2010. ‘Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Members of Congress’. American Political Science Review 104(3):519–542.Google Scholar
Bartle, John, and Laycock, Samantha. 2012. ‘Telling More Than They Can Know? Does the Most Important Issue Really Reveal What is Most Important to Voters?’ Electoral Studies 31(4):679–688.Google Scholar
Bartle, John, Dellepiane-Avellaneda, Sebastian, and Stimson, James A.. 2011. ‘The Moving Centre: Preferences for Government Activity in Britain, 1950–2005’. British Journal of Political Science 41(2):259–285.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bertelli, Anthony M., and John, Peter. 2013. ‘Public Policy Investment: Risk and Return in British Politics’. British Journal of Political Science 43(4):741–773.Google Scholar
Bevan, Shaun, and Jennings, Will. 2014. ‘Representation, Agendas and Institutions’. European Journal of Political Research 53(1):37–56.Google Scholar
Burstein, Paul. 2003. ‘The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda’. Political Research Quarterly 56(1):29–40.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice. 2001. ‘The President’s Legislative Influence from Public Appeals’. American Journal of Political Science 45(2):313–329.Google Scholar
Chaqués Bonafont, Laura, and Palau, Anna M.. 2011. ‘Assessing the Responsiveness of Spanish Policymakers to the Priorities of their Citizens’. West European Politics 34(4):706–730.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne C., and Whiteley, Paul. 2009. ‘The American Voter’s British Cousin’. Electoral Studies 28(4):632–641.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jeffrey E. 1997. Presidential Responsiveness and Public Policy-Making: The Publics and the Policies that Presidents Choose. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Durr, Robert H. 1993. ‘What Moves Policy Sentiment?’ American Political Science Review 87:158–170.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Tedin, Kent L.. 2010. American Public Opinion. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geer, John G. 1991. ‘Do Open-Ended Questions Measure “Salient” Issues?’ Public Opinion Quarterly 55:360–370.Google Scholar
Hibbs, Douglas A. 1979. ‘The Mass Public and Macro-Economic Policy: The Dynamics of Public Opinion Towards Unemployment and Inflation’. American Journal of Political Science 2(3):705–731.Google Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., and Klemmensen, Robert. 2005. ‘Responsive Government? Public Opinion and Government Policy Preferences in Britain and Denmark’. Political Studies 53(2):379–402.10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00534.xGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., and Klemmensen, Robert. 2008. ‘Government Responsiveness and Political Competition in Comparative Perspective’. Comparative Political Studies 41(3):309–337.Google Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., Klemmensen, Robert, and Pickup, Mark. 2008. ‘The Dynamics of Issue Diversity in Party Rhetoric’. Working Paper No. 3, Oxford Centre for the Study of Inequality and Democracy.Google Scholar
Hood, Christopher, Rothstein, Henry, and Baldwin, Robert. 2001. The Government of Risk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, John. 1994. ‘Granger Causality, Rational Expectations and Aversion to Unemployment and Inflation’. Public Choice 80(1/2):9–21.Google Scholar
Jennings, Will. 2009. ‘The Public Thermostat, Political Responsiveness and Error-Correction: Border Control and Asylum in Britain, 1994–2007’. British Journal of Political Science 39(4):847–870.Google Scholar
Jennings, Will, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2011. ‘Distinguishing Between Most Important Problems and Issues’. Public Opinion Quarterly 75:545–555.Google Scholar
Jennings, Will, and John, Peter. 2009. ‘The Dynamics of Political Attention: Public Opinion and the Queen’s Speech in the United Kingdom’. American Journal of Political Science 53(4):838–854.Google Scholar
John, Peter. 2006. ‘Explaining Policy Change: The Impact of the Media, Public Opinion and Political Violence on Urban Budgets in England’. Journal of European Public Policy 13(7):1053–1068.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. 1994. Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2004. ‘Representation and Agenda Setting’. Policy Studies Journal 32(1):1–24.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., Larsen-Price, Heather, and Wilkerson, John. 2009. ‘Representation and American Governing Institutions’. Journal of Politics 71(1):277–290.Google Scholar
King, Anthony, and Wybrow, Robert. 2001. British Political Opinion 1937–2000. London: Politicos.Google Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey, and Phillips, Justin. 2012. ‘The Democratic Deficit in the States’. American Journal of Political Science 56(1):148–166.Google Scholar
Lindeboom, Gert-Jan. 2012. ‘Public Priorities in Government’s Hands: Corresponding Policy Agendas in the Netherlands?’ Acta Politica 47(4):443–467.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael D., Budge, Ian, and Pennings, Paul. 2005. ‘Choice Versus Sensitivity: Party Reactions to Public Concerns’. European Journal of Political Research 43(6):845–868.Google Scholar
Monroe, Alan. 1979. ‘Consistency between Constituency Preferences and National Policy Decisions’. American Politics Quarterly 7(1):3–19.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., Bartels, Larry M., and Seawright, Jason. 2013. ‘Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans’. Perspectives on Politics 11(1):51–73.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1983. ‘Effects of Public Opinion on Policy’. American Political Science Review 77:175–190.Google Scholar
Petry, François. 1999. ‘The Opinion-Policy Relationship in Canada’. Journal of Politics 61(2):541–551.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart. 2002. Agenda-Setting Dynamics in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: The Public, Politics and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart, Wlezien, Christopher, and McLean, Iain. 2006. ‘Public Expenditure in the UK: How Measures Matter’. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 169:255–271.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1991. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald. 1963. ‘Spatial Models and Party Competition’. American Political Science Review 57(2):368–377.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, Sebastián. 2011. ‘Politics Without Citizens? Public Opinion, Television News, the President, and Real-World Factors in Chile, 2000-2005’. The International Journal of Press/Politics 16(3):357–381.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. ‘The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending’. American Journal of Political Science 39:981–1000.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 2004. ‘Patterns of Representation: Dynamics of Public Preferences and Policy’. The Journal of Politics 66(1):1–24.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 2005. ‘On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with “Most Important Problem”’. Electoral Studies 24(4):555–579.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher, and Soroka, Stuart. 2012. ‘Political Institutions and the Opinion-Policy Link’. West European Politics 35:1407–1432.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jennings and Wlezien supplementary material

Tables S1 and S2

Download Jennings and Wlezien supplementary material(File)
File 26.4 KB