Advertisement

Acta Politica

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 171–192 | Cite as

Voice, representation and trust in parliament

  • Kris Dunn
Original Article

Abstract

The procedural justice literature argues that providing individuals voice in institutional processes facilitates trust in that institution. For democratic institutions, voice is provided to the citizenry via political representation. In this article, I apply the procedural justice argument to trust in parliament, equating representation with voice: if individuals believe they are represented in parliament, they will trust parliament more than if they believe otherwise. Analyses of data from three of four countries find support for this argument: those individuals who believe that a party with at least one seat in parliament represents their views trust parliament more than those who do not. This relationship holds even when accounting for political self-interest. For those who wish to promote trust in parliament, a suggested normative good with a host of politically important consequences, one potential pathway is to facilitate individuals’ belief that there is a party in parliament that represents them.

Keywords

voice representation trust in parliament procedural justice Left–Right congruence 

References

  1. Aldrich, J.H. and McKelvey, R.D. (1977) A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. The American Political Science Review 71 (1): 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anand, P. (2001) Procedural fairness in economic and social choice: Evidence from a survey of voters. Journal of Economic Psychology 22 (2): 247–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, C.J. and LoTempio, A.J. (2002) Winning, losing and political trust in America. British Journal of Political Science 32 (2): 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andeweg, R.B. (2011) Approaching perfect policy congruence: Measurement, development, and relevance for political representation. In: M. Rosema, B. Denters and K. Aarts (eds.) How Democracy Works: Political Representation and Policy Congruence in Modern Societies. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press; Pallas Publications, pp. 39–52.Google Scholar
  5. Azur, M.J., Stuart, E.A., Frangakis, C. and Leaf, P.J. (2011) Multiple imputation by chained equations: What is it and how does it work? International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 20 (1): 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banducci, S.A. and Karp, J.A. (2003) How elections change the way citizens view the political system: Campaigns, media effects and electoral outcomes in comparative perspective. British Journal of Political Science 33 (3): 443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bélanger, É. and Nadeau, R. (2005) Political trust and the vote in multiparty elections: The Canadian case. European Journal of Political Research 44 (1): 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Bowler, S. and Karp, J. (2004) Politicians, scandals, and trust in government. Political Behavior 26 (3): 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Church, C.H. (2008) The swiss elections of 21 October 2007: Consensus fights back. West European Politics 31 (3): 608–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, R.L. (1989) Fabrications of justice. Social Justice Research 3 (1): 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox, M. (2003) When trust matters: Explaining differences in voter turnout. Journal of Common Market Studies 41 (4): 757–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Culnan, M.J. and Armstrong, P.K. (1999) Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science 10 (1): 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalton, R.J., Farrell, D.M. and McAllister, I. (2011) The dynamics of political representation. In: M. Rosema, B. Denters and K. Aarts (eds.) How Democracy Works: Political Representation and Policy Congruence in Modern Societies. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; Pallas Publications, pp. 21–38.Google Scholar
  15. Dunn, K. (2012) Voice and trust in parliamentary representation. Electoral Studies 31 (2): 393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Easton, D. (1965) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Easton, D. (1975) A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science 5 (4): 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Folger, R. (1977) Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (2): 108–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Golder, M. and Stramski, J. (2010) Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grimes, M. (2006) Organizing consent: The role of procedural fairness in political trust and compliance. European Journal of Political Research 45 (2): 285–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grönlund, K. and Setälä, M. (2007) Political trust, satisfaction and voter turnout. Comparative European Politics 5 (4): 400–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hetherington, M.J. (1998) The political relevance of political trust. The American Political Science Review 92 (4): 791–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hetherington, M.J. (1999) The effect of political trust on the presidential vote, 1968–96. The American Political Science Review 93 (2): 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hetherington, M.J. (2005) Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Holmberg, S. (2011) Dynamic representation from above. In: M. Rosema, B. Denters and K. Aarts (eds.) How Democracy Works: Political Representation and Policy Congruence in Modern Societies. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; Pallas Publications, pp. 53–76.Google Scholar
  26. Hooghe, M., Marien, S. and Pauwels, T. (2011) Where do distrusting voters turn if there is no viable exit or voice option? The impact of political trust on electoral behaviour in the Belgian regional elections of June 2009. Government and Opposition 46 (2): 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huber, J.D. and Powell, Jr. G.B. (1994) Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics 46 (3): 291–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim, M. (2009) Cross-national analyses of satisfaction with democracy and ideological congruence. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 19 (1): 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R. (2003) Fair process: Managing in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review 81 (1): 127–136.Google Scholar
  30. King, G., Murray, C.J.L., Salomon, J.A. and Tandon, A. (2004) Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. The American Political Science Review 98 (1): 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Korsgaard, M.A., Schweiger, D.M. and Sapienza, H.J. (1995) Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. The Academy of Management Journal 38 (1): 60–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kritzinger, S., Aichholzer, J., Johann, D., Wagner, M., Willmann, J. and Zeglovits, E. (2013) AUTNES Pre- and Post-Election Survey 2009 Documentation Report, 2nd edn. Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna.Google Scholar
  33. Ladner, A. (2001) Swiss political parties: Between persistence and change. West European Politics 24 (2): 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lind, E.A., Kanfer, R. and Earley, P.C. (1990) Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (5): 952–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lind, E.A. and van den Bos, K. (2002) When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior 24: 181–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mansbridge, J. (1999) Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent ‘Yes’. The Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mansbridge, J. (2009) A ‘selection model’ of political representation. The Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (4): 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marien, S. and Hooghe, M. (2011) Does political trust matter? An empirical investigation into the relation between political trust and support for law compliance. European Journal of Political Research 50 (2): 267–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mill, J.S. (1861) Representative Government. Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche Books.Google Scholar
  41. Miller, A.H. (1974) Political issues and trust in government: 1964–1970. The American Political Science Review 68 (3): 951–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller, A.H. and Borrelli, S.A. (1991) Confidence in government during the 1980s. American Politics Research 19 (2): 147–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mishler, W. and Rose, R. (2001) What are the origins of political trust?: Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies 34 (1): 30–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Montesquieu, C.d.S. (2002 [1748]) The spirit of the laws. In: A.M. Cohler, B.C. Miller and H.S. Stone (eds.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Norris, P. (1999a) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Norris, P. (ed.) (1999b) Institutional explanations for political support. In: Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pande, R. (2003) Can mandated political representation increase policy influence for disadvantaged minorities? Theory and evidence from India. The American Economic Review 93 (4): 1132–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pennings, P. and Keman, H. (2003) The Dutch parliamentary elections in 2002 and 2003: The rise and decline of the Fortuyn movement. Acta Politica 38 (1): 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Powell, G.B. (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Powell, G.B. (2006) Election laws and representative governments: Beyond votes and seats. British Journal of Political Science 36 (2): 291–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Royston, P. and White, I.R. (2011) Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE): Implementation in stata. Journal of Statistical Software 45 (4): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1978) A theory of procedure. California Law Review 66 (3): 541–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tyler, T.R. (1994) Governing amid diversity: The effect of fair decisionmaking procedures on the legitimacy of government. Law & Society Review 28 (4): 809–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tyler, T.R. and Blader, S.L. (2003) The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review 7 (4): 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E.A. (1992) A relational model of authority in groups. In P. Zanna Mark (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 25. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 115–191.Google Scholar
  57. Urbinati, N. (2006) Political representation as democratic process. In: K. Palonen (ed.) Redescriptions. Helsinki, Finland: Transaction Publishers, pp. 18–40.Google Scholar
  58. van den Bos, K., Wilke, H.A.M. and Lind, E.A. (1998) When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (6): 1449–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Prooijen, J.-W. (2009) Procedural justice as autonomy regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96 (6): 1166–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Verba, S. (1993) The 1993 James Madison award lecture: The voice of the people. Political Science and Politics 26 (4): 677–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walker, L., Lind, E.A. and Thibaut, J. (1979) The relation between procedural and distributive justice. Virginia Law Review 65 (8): 1401–1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. White, I.R., Royston, P. and Wood, A.M. (2011) Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine 30 (4): 377–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Williams, M.S. (1998) Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kris Dunn
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Politics and International Studies, University of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations