Advertisement

European Political Science

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 533–543 | Cite as

The Thermostatic Model of Representation Reviewed

  • Kathrin Thomas
Review

Book reviewed: Degrees of Democracy. Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Stuart N. Soroka and Christopher Wlezien (eds.) (New York, Cambridge University Press, 2010), 241pp., ISBN: 978 0 5216 8789 8

The reciprocal relationship between public opinion and public policy is one major concern in the study of democratic representation. One key characteristic of a representative democracy is policy responsiveness (Dahl, 1971: 1), which aims for a relatively close correspondence between government policies and public preferences (Lijphart, 1984: 2). In order to evaluate the democratic performance of a representative government, scholars focus on the government's ability to fulfill this responsiveness function. Typically, researchers ask whether or not government policies reflect public preferences and how consistently they do this.

Giving an answer to this question and more is also the main concern of Stuart N. Soroka and Christopher Wlezien in Degrees of Democracy. The authors set their...

References

  1. Bartels, L.M. (2009) ‘Economic Inequality and Political Representation’, in L. Jacobs and D. King (ed.) The Unsustainable American State, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 167–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binzer Hobolt, S. and Klemmensen, R. (2005) ‘*e government? Public opinion and government policy preferences in Britain and Denmark’, Political Studies 53 (2): 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binzer Hobolt, S. and Klemmensen, R. (2008) ‘Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective’, Comparative Political Studies 41 (3): 309–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blais, A. and Bodet, M.A. (2006) ‘Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policy makers?’ Comparative Political Studies 39 (10): 1243–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks, J.E. (1987) ‘The opinion-policy nexus in France. Do institutions and ideology make a difference?’ Journal of Politics 49 (2): 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks, J.E. (1990) ‘The opinion-policy nexus in Germany’, Public Opinion Quarterly 54 (4): 508–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Budge, I. and McDonald, M.D. (2007) ‘Election and party system effects on policy representation: Bringing time into a comparative perspective’, Electoral Studies 26 (1): 168–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dahl, R.A. (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Downs, A. (1957) ‘An economic theory of political action in a democracy’, Journal of Political Economy 65 (2): 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duverger, M. (1954) Political Parties, London, UK: Lowe & Brydone.Google Scholar
  11. Gilens, M. (2005) ‘Inequality and democratic responsiveness’, Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (5): 778–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Golder, M. and Stramski, J. (2010) ‘Ideological congruence and electoral institutions’, American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hellwig, T. (2008) ‘Globalization, policy constraints, and vote choice’, Journal of Politics 70 (4): 1128–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hellwig, T. and Samuels, D. (2007) ‘Voting in open economies. The electoral consequences of globalization’, Comparative Political Studies 40 (3): 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huber, J.D. and Powell, G.B. (1994) ‘Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy’, World Politics 46 (3): 291–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim, H.-M. and Fording, R.C. (1998) ‘Voter ideology in western democracies, 1946–1989’, European Journal of Political Research 33 (1): 73–97.Google Scholar
  17. Kim, H.-M. and Fording, R.C. (2001) ‘Extending Party Estimates to Governments and Electors’, in I. Budge, H.-D. Klingemann, A. Volkens, J. Bara, and E. Tanenbaum (eds.) Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998, Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 157–177.Google Scholar
  18. Klingemann, H.-D., Hofferbert, R.I. and Budge, I. (1994) Parties, Policies, and Democracy, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kuklinski, J.H. and Segura, G.M. (1995) ‘Endogeneity, exogeneity, time, and space in political representation’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lijphart, A. (1984) Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries, New Haven, CT; London, UK: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lijphart, A. (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems. A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies 1945–1990, Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven, CT; London, UK: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. McDonald, M.D. and Budge, M.I. (2005) Elections, Parties, Democracy, Conferring the Median Mandate, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McDonald, M.D., Mendes, S.M. and Budge, M. (2004) ‘What are elections for? Conferring the median mandate’, British Journal of Political Science 34 (1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Monroe, A.D. (1979) ‘Inconsistency between public preferences and national policy decisions’, American Politics Quarterly 7 (1): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Monroe, A.D. (1998) ‘Public opinion and public policy’, Public Opinion Quarterly 62 (1): 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Page, B.I. and Shapiro, R.Y. (1983) ‘Effects of public opinion on policy’, American Political Science Review 77 (1): 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pierce, R. (1999) ‘Mass-Elite Linkages and the Responsible Party Model of Representation’, in W.E. Miller, R. Pierce, J. Thomassen, R. Herrera, S. Holmberg, P. Esaisson, and B. Wessels (eds.) Policy Representation in Western Democracies, Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
  29. Powell, G.B. (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy. Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT; London, UK: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Powell, G.B. (2004) ‘The quality of democracy. The chain of responsiveness’, Journal of Democracy 15 (4): 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Powell, G.B. (2006) ‘Election laws and representative governments: Beyond votes and seats’, British Journal of Political Science 36 (2): 291–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Powell, G.B. (2009) ‘The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative measures, data and time periods on the effects of election rules’, Comparative Political Studies 42 (12): 1475–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Powell, G.B. and Vanberg, G.S. (2000) ‘Election laws, disproportionality and median correspondence: Implications for two visions of democracy’, British Journal of Political Science 30 (3): 383–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Soroka, S.N. and Wlezien, C. (2004) ‘Opinion representation and policy feedback: Canada in comparative perspective’, Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (3): 531–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Soroka, S.N. and Wlezien, C. (2005) ‘Opinion-policy dynamics: Public preferences and public expenditure in the United Kingdom’, British Journal of Political Science 35 (4): 665–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Soroka, S.N. and Wlezien, C. (2008) ‘On the limits to inequality in representation’, Political Science and Politics 41 (2): 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tsebelis, G. (2002) Veto Players. How Political Institutions Work, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wlezien, C. (1995) ‘The public as thermostat: Dynamics of preferences for spending’, American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 981–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wlezien, C. (1996) ‘Dynamics of representation: The case of US spending on defence’, British Journal of Political Science 26 (1): 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wlezien, C. (2004) ‘Patterns of representations: Dynamics of public preferences and policy’, Journal of Politics 66 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wlezien, C. and Soroka, S.N. (2007) ‘The Relationship between Public Opinion and Policy’, in R.J. Dalton, and H.-D. Klingemann (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behaviour, Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 799–832.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Consortium for Political Research 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathrin Thomas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PoliticsUniversity of ExeterExeterUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations