Referendums and public policy: do more opportunities for direct participation affect policy outcomes?

  • Matt QvortrupEmail author


Research on the effects of referendums and citizens’ initiatives in the USA and Switzerland have shown that provisions for institutions of direct democracy (referendums and initiatives) are statistically associated with lower inequality, lower budget deficits and higher levels of GDP per capita at the state/canton level. This paper breaks new ground by replicating the American and Swiss research on nationwide referendums in European democracies. The results differ in some respects from the Swiss and American results. While, this paper to a degree corroborates the association between equality and citizens’ initiatives, there is no evidence in support of the proposition that citizen-initiated referendums are correlated with lower public debt. And, contrary to the findings of the earlier research, the paper finds evidence that provisions for referendums lead to lower GDP per capita. Moreover, the analysis cannot point to specific exemplars of countries that showcase the relationships. It remains difficult to point to any specific policy effect of referendums and initiatives in Europe.


Referendums Equality Initiatives Direct democracy Budget deficits 


  1. Aristotle. 1905. The Politics of Aristotle (trans: ed. Weldon, J.E.C.), London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Bogdanor, V. 1981. The People and the Party System: The Referendum and Electoral Reform in British politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, D., and A. Ranney. 1978. Summing Up. In Referendums: A Comparative Study of Practice and Theory, ed. David Butler and Austin Ranney, 221–226. Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Caramani, D. 2017. Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, H., M. Goodwin, and P. Whiteley. 2017. Brexit: Why Britain Voted to Leave the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Tocqueville, A. 2003. Democracy in America. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  7. Feld, Lars P., Justina A.V. Fischer, and Gebhardt Kirchgässner. 2010. The Effect of Direct Democracy on Income Distribution; Evidence of Switzerland. Economic Inquiry 48 (4): 817–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feld, L.P., and G. Kirchgässner. 2001. Does direct democracy reduce public debt evidence from Swiss municipalities. Public Choice 109 (3–4): 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feld, L. P., & Savioz, M. R. 1997. Direct democracy matters for economic performance: An empirical investigation. Kyklos, 50 (4), 507–538. For a more recent study see M. Qvortrup (2017) Direct Democracy, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 93–94.Google Scholar
  10. Frey, B.S., and A. Stutzer. 2000. Happiness, economy and institutions. The Economic Journal 110 (4): 918–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerber, E.R., and A. Lupia. 1995. Campaign Competition and Policy Responsiveness in Direct Legislation Elections. Political Behavior 17 (3): 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glencross, A. 2016. Why the UK voted for Brexit: David Cameron’s Great Miscalculation. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halperin, M., J. Siegle, and M. Weinstein. 2009. The democracy advantage: How democracies promote prosperity and peace. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lijphart, A. 2012. Patterns of democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Marsilius of Padua. 2005. The Defender of the Peace, 80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Matsusaka, J. 1992. The Economics of Direct Legislation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (2): 541–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Matsusaka, J.G. 2005. Direct democracy works. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (2): 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matsusaka, J.G. 2008. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy and American Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Morel, M. 2017. Types of referendums, provisions and practice at the national level worldwide. In The Routledge Handbook to Referendums and Direct Democracy, ed. Laurence Morel and Matt Qvortrup, 27–59. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Norris, P. 2012. Making Democratic Governance Work: How Regimes Shape Prosperity, Welfare and Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Partlett, W. 2012. The dangers of popular constitution-making. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 38 (1): 193–232.Google Scholar
  24. Qvortrup, M. 2013. Western Europe. In Referendums Around the World: The Continued Growth of Direct Democracy, ed. M. Qvortrup, 43–64. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  25. Teune, H., and A. Przeworski. 1970. The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Consortium for Political Research 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Trust, Peace and Social RelationsCoventry UniversityCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations