The Winner Takes It All: Revisiting the Effect of Direct Democracy on Citizens’ Political Support
- 483 Downloads
Despite the strong theoretical expectations about the beneficial effect of direct democratic instruments on citizens’ political support, the empirical evidence is scarce and inconsistent. We add to this literature by studying the effect of the use of a direct democratic process on citizens’ political support and its underlying causal mechanism. Using a unique research design that combines a strong test of causality with a high level of ecological validity, we surveyed inhabitants of a Belgian neighborhood that held a local referendum and a comparison group (i.e. inhabitants of a comparable neighborhood without referendum) before and after the referendum (n = 1049). Using difference-in-differences analysis and first difference regression analysis, we show that in line with our expectations the increase in political support following the referendum is not driven by involvement or procedural fairness perceptions but by an increase in support levels among the winners of the decision. Moreover, despite the contested nature of the issue, losers’ level of political support did not decrease significantly after the result of the referendum was announced.
KeywordsDirect democracy Democratic innovations Referendum Democratic legitimacy Political trust Losers’ consent
The study was funded by a BELSPO Interuniversity Attraction Pole Grant (PARTIREP II) and a FWO Project Grant (G075615N). A large number of colleagues provided valuable comments during various phases of this project. The scholarship of Peter Esaiasson inspired this project significantly. We also want to acknowledge the three anonymous reviewers, Marc Hooghe, Yue Hou, Kristof Jacobs, Arndt Leininger, Cherie Maestas, Peter Miller, Diana Mutz and Min Reuchamps for their creative and valuable suggestions. We wish to thank Greet Louw for research assistance. Earlier versions were presented in 2016 at the ECPR General Conference, WAPOR-RECSM Political Trust Conference, the annual meetings of MPSA, APSA and the Dutch and Belgian Political Science Association. We wish to thank all participants for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Altman, D. (2014). Direct democracy worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Listhaug, O. (2007). Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Barber, B. R. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press. (original 1984).Google Scholar
- Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- della Porta, D. (2013). Can democracy be saved? Participation, deliberation and social movements. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., & Persson, M. (2017). Political support in the wake of policy controversies. In C. van Ham, J. Thomassen, K. Aarts, & R. Andeweg (Eds.), Myth and reality of the legitimacy crisis. Explaining trends and cross-national differences in established democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Gilens, M., Glaser, J., & Mendelberg, T. (2001). Having a Say: Political Efficacy and Direct Democracy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, August 30–September 2, 2001.Google Scholar
- Kern, A., & Hooghe, M. (2017). The effect of direct democracy on the social stratification of political participation: Inequality in democratic fatigue? Comparative European Politics. 10.1057/s41295-017-0093-y.
- Morrell, M. (1999). Citizens’ evaluations of participatory democratic procedures: Normative theory meets empirical science. Political Research Quarterly, 52(2), 293–322.Google Scholar
- Oliver, J., Ha, S., & Callen, Z. (2012). Local elections and the politics of small-scale democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Remler, D. K., & van Ryzin, G. G. (2010). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- Skitka, L., & Wisneski, D. (2012). Justice theory and research: A social functionalist perspective. In H. Tennen & J. Suls (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Tyler, T. (2011). Why people cooperate. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Vatter, A., & Danaci, D. (2010). Mehrheitstyrannei durch Volksentscheide? Zum Spannungsverhältnis zwischen direkter Demokratie und Minderheitenschutz. Politische Vierteljahreschrift, 51(2), 122–140.Google Scholar
- Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality. Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar