Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
In the empirical literature citizen involvement, also using direct democratic processes, is often theorized as more fair than purely representational processes. Yet we could question whether this reasoning holds for democratic minorities. While scholars have looked into the nature of the outcome of direct democratic processes and whether they harm minorities (Donovan and Bowler 1998; Haider-Markel et al. 2007; Vatter and Danaci 2010), empirical evidence on how minorities evaluate these procedures is lacking.
Following Altman (2014), we can distinguish between different types of direct democratic instruments based on who took the initiative, whether it is binding and whether it is proactive or reactive. While inhabitants did not formally gather signatures to demand for a referendum, it is clear the direct democratic process was the result of popular demand. The process can be best characterized as a bottom-up rather than a top-down process as it was organized as a reaction to protest from citizens against a proposed decision and citizens were included in drafting the answering possibilities.
All respondents were originally contacted by post. They also had the opportunity to complete the questionnaire online using their personalized login data that was distributed together with the postal survey.
Based on the information from the city’s register of residents, we compared those 1,049 respondents that answered twice with the respondents that answered only once or not at all. Results show no statistically significant difference on the 5% level in terms of sex. With an average age of 52, the group of consistent respondents is significantly older than the group of non-respondents and respondents that participated in only one wave. The average age in this group is 45. In the entire sample that we drew, the average age is 47.
Unfortunately, no voter validation data is available in Belgium. The fact that we can predict the outcome of the referendum well seems to indicate that rather than biased self-reports, the overrepresentation of voters in our sample is driven by a higher non-response among non-voters.
We used fiscal data from the Belgian Federal Government from 2008 because it was the most recent data available for statistical sectors at the time of sampling.
Data and replication code for the analyses and figures is available at the journal’s Dataverse page (see https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/WKQTNZ).
The careful monitoring of both neighborhoods and interviews with policymakers and civil society organizations did not point at another major political event in the city during this timeframe that could help us explain the differential trends in the comparison group. While explaining the reason for the trend in the comparison group is beyond the scope of the study, we should note that the possibility of change in the comparison group is exactly why we included a comparison group in our design. This second sample allows us to take changes over time into account that are unrelated to the referendum. Given that the likelihood of a referendum is as large in both neighborhoods and our survey reveals the policy change resulting from the referendum was not seen as influential to the inhabitants in the comparison group, it is safe to assume the changes in citizens’ support in the comparison group are unrelated to the referendum in another neighborhood of the city.
Introducing these variables singlehandedly into the analysis does not change the main conclusion of this additional analysis: The effect of participation in the referendum on changes in trust on local authorities and democratic performance evaluations is not mediated by procedural fairness perceptions or perceptions of influence on the decision-making process.
References
Altman, D. (2014). Direct democracy worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Listhaug, O. (2007). Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, C. J., & LoTempio, A. J. (2002). Winning, losing and political trust in america. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 335–351.
Arnesen, S. (2017). Legitimacy from decision-making influence and outcome favourability: Results from general population survey experiments. Political Studies, 65(1S), 146–161.
Barber, B. R. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press. (original 1984).
Bauer, P. C., & Fatke, M. (2014). Direct democracy and political trust: Enhancing trust, initiating distrust—Or both? Swiss Political Science Review, 20(1), 49–69.
Blais, A., & Rubenson, D. (2013). The source of turnout decline: New values or new contexts? Comparative Political Studies, 46(1), 95–117.
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2002). Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen influence on government. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 371–390.
Bryan, F. M. (2003). Real democracy. The new England town meeting and how it works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Craig, S. C., Martinez, M. D., Gainous, J., & Kane, J. G. (2006). Winners, losers, and election context: Voter responses to the 2000 presidential election. Political Research Quarterly, 59(4), 579–592.
Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dalton, R. J., & Welzel, C. (2014). The civic culture transformed: From allegiant to assertive citizens. New York: Cambridge University Press.
De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. (2007). The effects of trust and procedural justice on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 639–649.
de Vreese, C. H. (2004). Primed by the euro: The impact of a referendum campaign on public opinion and evaluations of government and political leaders. Scandinavian Political Studies, 27(1), 45–64.
De Vries, C. E. (2009). The impact of EU referenda on national electoral politics: The Dutch case. West European Politics, 32(1), 142–171.
della Porta, D. (2013). Can democracy be saved? Participation, deliberation and social movements. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Donovan, T., & Bowler, S. (1998). Direct democracy and minority rights: An extension. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 1020–1024.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Dyck, J. J. (2009). Initiated distrust: Direct democracy and trust in government. American Politics Research, 37(4), 539–568.
Dyck, J. J., & Lascher, E. L. (2009). Direct democracy and political efficacy reconsidered. Political Behavior, 31(3), 401–427.
Easton, D. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5(4), 435–457.
Ercan, S. A., & Gagnon, J.-P. (2014). The crisis of democracy: Which crisis? Which democracy? Democratic Theory, 1(2), 1–10.
Esaiasson, P. (2011). Electoral losers revisited. How citizens react to defeat at the ballot box. Electoral Studies, 30(1), 102–113.
Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., & Persson, M. (2012). Which decision-making arrangements generate the strongest legitimacy beliefs? Evidence from a randomised field experiment. European Journal of Political Research, 51(6), 785–808.
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.
Esaiasson, P., Persson, M., Gilljam, M., & Lindholm, T. (2016). Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision-Acceptance. British Journal of Political Science. doi:10.1017/S0007123416000508.
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.
Felicetti, A., Niemeyer, S., & Curato, N. (2016). Improving deliberative participation: Connecting mini-publics to deliberative systems. European Political Science Review, 8(3), 427–448.
Geys, B. (2006). ‘Rational’ theories of voter turnout: A review. Political Studies, 4, 16–32.
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.
Grimes, M. (2006). Organizing consent: The role of procedural fairness in political trust and compliance. European Journal of Political Research, 45(2), 285–315.
Haider-Markel, D. P., Querze, A., & Lindaman, K. (2007). Lose, win, or draw? A reexamination of direct democracy and minority rights. Political Research Quarterly, 60(2), 304–314.
Hero, R. E., & Tolbert, C. J. (2004). Minority voices and citizen attitudes about government responsiveness in the American States: Do social and institutional context matter? British Journal of Political Science, 34(1), 109–121.
Hug, S. (2005). The political effects of referendums: An analysis of institutional innovations in Eastern and Central Europe. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 38(4), 475–499.
Ito, Tiffany A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). Negative information weights more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 887–900.
Kern, A. (2017). The effect of direct democratic participation on citizens’ political attitudes in Switzerland: The difference between availability and use. Politics and Governance, 5(2), 16–26.
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.
Lago, I., & Martinez i Coma, F. (2017). Challenge or consent? Understanding losers’ consent in mass election. Government and Opposition, 52(3), 412–436.
Leemann, L., & Wasserfallen, F. (2016). The democratic effect of direct democracy. American Political Science Review, 110(4), 750–762.
Leininger, A. (2015). Direct democracy in europe: Potentials and pitfalls. Global Policy, 6(1), 17–27.
Marien, S. (2011). The effect of electoral outcomes on political trust. A multi-level analysis of 23 countries. Electoral Studies, 30(4), 712–726.
Mendelsohn, M., & Cutler, F. (2000). The effect of referendums on democratic citizens: Information, politicization, efficacy and tolerance. British Journal of Political Science, 30(4), 669–698.
Miller, A., & Listhaug, O. (1990). Political parties and confidence in government. A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 20(3), 357–386.
Morrell, M. (1999). Citizens’ evaluations of participatory democratic procedures: Normative theory meets empirical science. Political Research Quarterly, 52(2), 293–322.
Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficits. Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oliver, J., Ha, S., & Callen, Z. (2012). Local elections and the politics of small-scale democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Olken, B. A. (2010). Direct democracy and local public goods: Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. American Political Science Review, 104(2), 243–267.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Persson, M., Esaiasson, P., & Gilljam, M. (2013). The effects of direct voting and deliberation on legitimacy beliefs: An experimental study of small group decision-making. European Political Science Review, 5(3), 381–399.
Pierce, L., Rogers, T., & Snyder, J. A. (2016). Losing hurts: The happiness impact of partisan electoral loss. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 3(1), 44–59.
Polletta, F. (2002). Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Przeworski, A. (1991). Democracy and the market: Political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Qvortrup, M. (2017). Demystifying direct democracy. Journal of Democracy, 28(3), 141–152.
Remler, D. K., & van Ryzin, G. G. (2010). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation. London: Sage Publications.
Sack, B. C. (2017). Gewinnen, Verlieren und lokale Betroffenheit bei Volksabstimmungen: Auswirkungen auf die Demokratiezufriedenheit im zeitlichen und räumlichen Vergleich. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 58(1), 75–97.
Scarrow, S. (2001). Direct democracy and institutional change. A comparative investigation. Comparative Political Studies, 34(6), 651–665.
Schlozman, D., & Yohai, I. (2008). How initiatives don’t always make citizens: Ballot initiatives in the American States, 1978–2004. Political Behavior, 30(4), 469–489.
Seabrook, N. R., Dyck, J. J., & Lascher, E. L. (2015). Do ballot initiatives increase general political knowledge? Political Behavior, 37(2), 279–307.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Shane, S., Blais, A., & Lago, I. (2011). Winning and competitiveness as determinants of political support. Social Science Quarterly, 92(3), 695–709.
Shomer, Y., Put, G., & Gedalya-Lavy, E. (2016). Intra-party politics and public opinion: How candidate selection processes affect citizens’ satisfaction with democracy. Political Behavior, 38(3), 509–534.
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.
Smith, M. A. (2002). Ballot initiatives and the democratic citizen. Journal of Politics, 64(3), 892–903.
Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations. Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, D. A., & Tolbert, C. J. (2004). Educated by initiative: The effects of direct democracy on citizens and political organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Soroka, S. N. (2014). Negativity in democratic politics causes and consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stadelmann-Steffen, I., & Vatter, A. (2012). Does satisfaction with democracy really increase happiness? Direct democracy and individual satisfaction in switzerland. Political Behavior, 34(3), 535–559.
Stolle, D., & Hooghe, M. (2004). Review article: Inaccurate, exceptional, one-sided or irrelevant? The debate about the alleged decline of social capital and civic engagement in western societies. British Journal of Political Science, 35(1), 149–167.
Tolbert, C. J., McNeal, R. S., & Smith, D. A. (2003). Enhancing civic engagement: The effect of direct democracy on political participation and knowledge. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 3(1), 23–41.
Towfigh, E. V., Goerg, S. J., Glockner, A., Leifeld, P., Llorente-Saguer, A., Bade, S., et al. (2016). Do direct-democratic procedures lead to higher acceptance than political representation? Experimental survey evidence from Germany. Public Choice, 167(1–2), 47–65.
Tyler, T. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 53–78.
Tyler, T. (2011). Why people cooperate. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ulbig, S. G. (2008). Voice is not enough. The importance of influence in political trust and policy assessments. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 523–539.
van Biezen, I., Mair, P., & Poguntke, T. (2012). Going, going,… gone? The decline of party membership in contemporary europe. European Journal of Political Research, 51(1), 24–56.
Vatter, A., & Danaci, D. (2010). Mehrheitstyrannei durch Volksentscheide? Zum Spannungsverhältnis zwischen direkter Demokratie und Minderheitenschutz. Politische Vierteljahreschrift, 51(2), 122–140.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality. Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Voigt, S., & Blume, L. (2015). Does direct democracy make for better citizens? A cautionary waring based on cross-country evidence. Constitutional Political Economy, 26(4), 391–420.
Wagschal, U. (1997). Direct democracy and public policymaking. Journal of Public Policy, 17(2), 223–245.
Warren, M. E. (2017). A problem-based approach to democratic theory. American Political Science Review, 111(1), 39–53.
Acknowledgements
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marien, S., Kern, A. The Winner Takes It All: Revisiting the Effect of Direct Democracy on Citizens’ Political Support. Polit Behav 40, 857–882 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9427-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9427-3