Public Choice

, Volume 124, Issue 1–2, pp 157–177 | Cite as

The eclipse of legislatures: Direct democracy in the 21st century



Demographic, political, and technological trends are fueling an unprecedented growth in direct democracy worldwide. If the trends continue, direct democracy threatens to eclipse legislatures in setting the policy agenda. This article reviews existing scientific knowledge about the initiative and referendum – the main institutions of direct democracy – and highlights key issues for the future.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baqir, R. (2002). Districting and government overspending. Journal of Political Economy, 110(6), 1318–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, G. S. (1983). A theory of competition among pressure groups for political Influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(3), 371–400.Google Scholar
  3. Besley, T., & Coate, S. (2003). Issue unbundling by citizen initiatives. Working Paper, London School of Economics, London, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Black, D. (1958). The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blomberg, S. B., Hess, G. D., & Weerapana, A. (2004). The impact of voter initiatives on economic activity. European Journal of Political Economy, 20(1), 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohn, H., & Inman, R. P. (1996). Balanced budget rules and public deficits: Evidence from U.S. states. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 45(1), 13–76.Google Scholar
  7. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bradbury, J. C., & Crain, W. M. (2001). Legislative organization and government spending: Cross country evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 82(3), 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broder, D. S. (2000). Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  10. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  11. DelRossi, A. F., & Inman, R. P. (1999). Changing the price of pork: The impact of local cost sharing on legislators’ demands for distributive public goods. Journal of Public Economics, 71(2), 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  13. Feld, L. P., & Kirchgassner, G. (2001). Does direct democracy reduce public debt? Evidence from Swiss Municipalities. Public Choice, 109(3–4), 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feld, L. P., & Savioz, M. R. (1997). Direct democracy matters for economic performance: An empirical investigation. Kyklos, 50(4), 507–538.Google Scholar
  15. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, economy and institutions. Economic Journal, 110(466), 918–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerber, E. R. (1996). Legislative response to the threat of popular initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 99–128.Google Scholar
  17. Gerber, E. R. (1999). The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gerber, E. R., & Lupia, A. (1995). Campaign competition and policy responsiveness in direct legislation Elections. Political Behavior, 17(3), 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilligan, T. W., & Matsusaka, J. G. (1995). Systematic deviations from constituent interests: The role of legislative structure and political parties in the states. Economic Inquiry, 33(3), 383–401.Google Scholar
  20. Gilligan, T. W., & Matsusaka, J. G. (2001). Fiscal policy, legislature size, and political parties: Evidence from the first half of the Twentieth Century. National Tax Journal, 54(1), 57–82.Google Scholar
  21. Gordon, T. M. (2004). The Local Initiative in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.Google Scholar
  22. Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.Google Scholar
  23. Kessler, A. S. (forthcoming). Representative versus direct democracy: The role of information asymmetries. Public Choice.Google Scholar
  24. Kiewiet, D. R., & Szakaly, K. (1996). Constitutional limitations on borrowing: An analysis of state bonded indebtedness. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 12(1), 62–97.Google Scholar
  25. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in california insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76.Google Scholar
  26. Lupia, A. (2001). Dumber than chimps? An assessment of direct democracy voters. In L. J. Sabato, H. R. Ernst, & B. A. Larson (Eds.), Dangerous Democracy? The Battle over Ballot Initiatives in America (pp. 66–70). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  27. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Marino, A. M., & Matsusaka, J. G. (2005). Decision processes, agency problems, and information: An economic analysis of capital budgeting procedures. Review of Financial Studies, 18(1), 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maskin, E., & Tirole, J. (2004). The politician and the judge: Accountability in government. American Economic Review, 94(4), 1034–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matsusaka, J. G. (1992). Economics of direct legislation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(429), 541–571.Google Scholar
  31. Matsusaka, J. G. (1995). Fiscal effects of the voter initiative: Evidence from the last 30 years. Journal of Political Economy, 103(3), 587–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matsusaka, J. G. (2000). Fiscal effects of the voter initiative in the first half of the 20th century. Journal of Law and Economics, 43(2), 619–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matsusaka, J. G. (2003). I&R in American cities: Basic patterns. In M. D. Waters (Ed.), Initiative and Referendum Almanac (pp. 31–36). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Matsusaka, J. G. (2005). Direct democracy and the executive. Working Paper, USC Marshall School of Business, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  36. Matsusaka, J. G. (forthcoming). Direct democracy and fiscal gridlock: Have voter initiatives paralyzed the california budget? State Politics and Policy Quarterly.Google Scholar
  37. Matsusaka, J. G., & McCarty, N. M. (2001). Political resource allocation: Benefits and costs of voter initiatives. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 17(2), 413–448.Google Scholar
  38. Peltzman, S. (1976). Toward a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 19(2), 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pommerehne, W. W. (1983). Private versus Oeffentliche Muellabfuhr – Nochmals Betrachtet. Finanzarchiv, 41(2), 466–475.Google Scholar
  40. Romer, T., & Rosenthal, H. (1979). Bureaucrats versus voters: On the political economy of resource allocation by direct democracy. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93(4), 563–587.Google Scholar
  41. Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(Spring), 3–21.Google Scholar
  42. Waters, M. D. (2003). Initiative and Referendum Almanac. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  43. Weingast, B. R., Shepsle, K. A., & Johnsen, C. (1981). The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distributive politics. Journal of Political Economy, 93(4), 642–664.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marshall School of Business and Law SchoolUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations