Skip to main content

Democratic representation and political inequality: how social differences translate into differential representation

French Politics volume 16, pages 341–357 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

As a key subject within the field of political science, democratic representation has been studied widely. One aspect of democracy, related to the functioning of representation, is political equality. According to Dahl (On democracy, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1998), democracies should be both responsive and treat its citizens as political equals. This latter element may be taken to mean that democracies should be—more or less—equally responsive to their citizens. However, studies show that, while there is evidence that governments represent or respond to people generally, there is less support of this form of political equality. In this research agenda and overview of studies dealing with representational inequality, some citizens seem better represented than others, most notably women, ethnic minorities, and those with lower income. I aim to take a modest step toward some more conceptual clarity and outline in what ways this field of study could be strengthened and expanded.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Source: Eurostat

Fig. 2

Source: The Interparliamentary Union

Notes

  1. Although there are exceptions (see, e.g., Karremans and Damhuis 2018), it also needs to be noted that the concept of democratic responsibility is complex (Bardi et al. 2014) and not necessarily straightforward to measure empirically.

  2. Which can theoretically range between 0 and 100, with higher values indicating more inequality.

  3. Data from the Interparliamentary Union on http://archive.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif-arc.htm.

  4. See Mansbridge (1999), who argues that descriptive representation on relevant characteristics can have important benefits for substantive representation and political emancipation, for a discussion of the arguments against descriptive representation.

References

  • Achen, C.H. 1978. Measuring Representation. American Journal of Political Science 22(3): 475–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., and L. Ezrow. 2009. Who do European Parties Represent? How Western European Parties Represent the Policy Preferences of Opinion Leaders. The Journal of Politics 71(1): 206–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexandrova, P., A. Rasmussen, and D. Toshkov. 2016. Agenda Responsiveness in the European Council: Public Priorities, Policy Problems and Political Attention. West European Politics 39(4): 605–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnesen, S., and Y. Peters. 2017. The Legitimacy of Representation: How Descriptive, Formal, and Responsiveness Representation Affect the Acceptability of Political Decisions. Comparative Political Studies 51(7): 868–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, M.J. 2016. Representing the Preferences of Donors, Partisans, and Voters in the US Senate. Public Opinion Quarterly 80(S1): 225–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardi, L., S. Bartolini, and A.H. Trechsel. 2014. Responsive and Responsible? The Role of Parties in Twenty-First Century Politics. West European Politics 37(2): 235–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L.M. 2008. Unequal Democracy. The Political Economy of the Gilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L.M. 2015. The Social Welfare Deficit: Public Opinion, Policy Responsiveness, and Political Inequality in Affluent Democracies. http://www.piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Bartels2015.pdf.

  • Belchior, A.M. 2010. Ideological Congruence Among European Political Parties. The Journal of Legislative Studies 16(1): 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernauer, J., N. Giger, and J. Rosset. 2015. Mind the Gap: Do Proportional Systems Foster a More Equal Representation of Women and Men, Poor and Rich? International Political Science Review 36(1): 78–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham Powell Jr., G. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blais, A., and M.A. Bodet. 2006. Does Proportional Representation Foster Closer Congruence between Citizens and Policy Makers? Comparative Political Studies 29(10): 1243–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bølstad, J. 2012. Thermostatic Voting: Presidential Elections in Light of New Policy Data. PS. Political Science & Politics 45(1): 44–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolzendahl, C., and C. Brooks. 2007. Women’s Political Representation and Welfare State Spending in 12 Capitalist Democracies. Social Forces 85(4): 1509–1534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branham, J.A., S.N. Soroka, and C. Wlezien. 2017. When do the Rich Win? Political Science Quarterly, 132(1): 43-62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, K.A., and L.P. Ray. 2002. Descriptive Representation, Policy Outcomes, and Municipal Day-Care Coverage in Norway. American Journal of Political Science 46(2): 428–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broockman, D.E. 2014. Distorted Communication, Unequal Representation: Constituents Communicate Less to Representatives Not of Their Race. American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 307–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouard, S., and I. Guinaudeau. 2014. Policy Beyond Politics? Public Opinion, Party Politics and the French Pro-nuclear Energy Policy. Journal of Public Policy 35(1): 137–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, N., K.L. Schlozman, and S. Verba. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action; Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D.M. 2014. Representing the Advantaged: How Politicians Reinforce Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D.M., and D.E. Broockman. 2011. Do Politicians Racially Discriminate Against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators. American Journal of Political Science 55(3): 463–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caramani, D. 2017. Will vs. Reason: The Populist and Technocratic Forms of Political Representation and Their Critique to Party Government. American Political Science Review 111(1): 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnes, N. 2012. Does the Numerical Underrepresentation of the Working Class in Congress Matter? Legislative Studies Quarterly 37(1): 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnes, N., and N. Lupu. 2015. Rethinking the Comparative Perspective on Class and Representation: Evidence from Latin America. American Journal of Political Science 59(1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, M. 2017. How Responsive are Political Elites? A Meta-Analysis of Experiments on Public Officials. Journal of Experimental Political Science 4(3): 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, M., and B.F. Schaffner. 2018. How Gender Conditions the Way Citizens Evaluate and Engage with Their Representatives. Political Research Quarterly 71(1): 46–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culpepper, P.D. 2010. Quiet Politics and Business Power: Corporate Control in Europe and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R.A. 1971. Polyarchy. Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R.A. 1998. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dingler, S.C., C. Kroeber, and J. Fortin-Rittberger. 2018. Do Parliaments Underrepresent Women’s Policy Preferences? Exploring Gender Equality in Policy Congruence in 21 European Democracies. Journal of European Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1423104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsässer, L., S. Hense, and A. Schäfer. 2017. „Dem Deutschen Volke“? Die ungleiche Responsivität des Bundestags. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 27(2): 161–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enns, P.K. 2015. Relative Policy Support and Coincidental Representation. Perspectives on Politics 13(4): 1053–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enns, P.K., and P.M. Kellstedt. 2008. Policy Mood and Political Sophistication: Why Everybody Moves Mood. British Journal of Political Science 38(3): 433–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, R.S., M.B. MacKuen, and J.A. Stimson. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavin, P. 2012. Income Inequality and Policy Representation in the American States. American Politics Research 40(1): 29–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gay, C. 2002. Spirals of Trust? The Effect of Descriptive Representation on the Relationship Between Citizens and Their Government. American Journal of Political Science 46(4): 717–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilens, M. 2005. Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 69(5): 778–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilens, M. 2012. Affluence and Influence. Economic Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilens, M., and B.I. Page. 2014. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics 12(3): 564–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golder, M., and J. Stramski. 2010. Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions. American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 90–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J.D. 2014. When and Why Minority Legislators Matter. Annual Review of Political Science 17(1): 327–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J.D., and B. Newman. 2005. Are Voters Better Represented? The Journal of Politics 67(4): 1206–1227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J.D., and B. Newman. 2007. The Unequal Representation of Latinos and Whites. The Journal of Politics 69(4): 1032–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J.D., B. Newman, and C. Wolbrecht. 2012. A Gender Gap in Policy Representation in the U.S. Congress? Legislative Studies Quarterly 37(1): 35–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakhverdian, A. 2015. Does it Matter that Most Representatives are Higher Educated? Swiss Political Science Review 21(2): 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, T.J. 2013. Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate. Politics Research Quarterly 66(3): 585–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, S.B., and R. Klemmensen. 2008. Government Responsiveness and Political Competition in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Political Studies 41(3): 309–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., and G.B. Powell. 1994. Congruence Between Citizens and Policymakers in Two Visions of Liberal Democracy. World Politics 46(3): 291–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inter-Parliamentary-Union. 2016. Youth Participation in National Parliaments. http://archive.ipu.org/pdf/publications/youthrep-e.pdf.

  • Kang, S.-G., and G.B. Powell. 2010. Representation and Policy Responsiveness: The Median Voter, Election Rules, and Redistributive Welfare Spending. Journal of Politics 72(4): 1014–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karremans, J., and K. Damhuis. 2018. The Changing Face of Responsibility: A Cross-Time Comparison of French Social Democratic Governments. Party Politics, Online First Published February 27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068818761197. (forthcoming).

  • Kelly, N.J., and P.K. Enns. 2010. Inequality and the Dynamics of Public Opinion: The Self-Reinforcing Link Between Economic Inequality and Mass Preferences. American Journal of Political Science 54(4): 855–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kissau, K., G. Lutz, and J. Rosset. 2012. Unequal Representation of Age Groups in Switzerland. Representation 48(1): 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lax, J.R., and J.H. Phillips. 2012. The Democratic Deficit in the States. American Journal of Political Science 56(1): 148–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leighley, J.E., and J. Oser. 2018. Representation in an Era of Political and Economic Inequality: How and When Citizen Engagement Matters. Perspectives on Politics 16(2): 328–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. 1997. Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma. American Political Science Review 91(1): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloren, A. 2015. Women’s Substantive Representation: Defending Feminist Interests or Women’s Electoral Preferences? The Journal of Legislative Studies 21(2): 144–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupu, N., and Z. Warner. 2017. Affluence and Congruence: Unequal Representation Around the World. http://www.noamlupu.com/A&C.pdf.

  • Mair, P. 2009. Representative versus Responsible Government. MPIfG Working Paper 09/8. Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne.

  • Manin, B. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. 1999. Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent “Yes”. The Journal of Politics 61(3): 628–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. 2003. Rethinking Representation. American Political Science Review 97(4): 515–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P.S. 2003. Voting’s Rewards: Voter Turnout, Attentive Publics, and Congressional Allocation of Federal Money. American Journal of Political Science 47(1): 110–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W.E., and D.E. Stokes. 1963. Constituency Influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57(1): 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, B.I., and M. Gilens. 2017. Democracy in America? What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do About It. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, Y., and S.J. Ensink. 2015. Differential Responsiveness in Europe: The Effects of Preference Difference and Electoral Participation. West European Politics 38(3): 577–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, Y., and A.H. Trechsel. 2013. Improving Responsiveness? The Effects of Direct Involvement Structures on Government Responsiveness. Paper presented at the 20th International Conference of Europeanists, Amsterdam.

  • Phillips, A. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Political Representation of Gender, Ethnicity, and Race. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piketty, T. 2014. Capital in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkin, H.F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G.B.J. 2013. Representation in Context: Election Laws and Ideological Congruence Between Citizens and Governments. Perspectives on Politics 11(1): 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, A., L.K. Mäder, and S. Reher. 2018. With a Little Help From The People? The Role of Public Opinion in Advocacy Success. Comparative Political Studies 51(2): 139–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reher, S. 2015. Explaining Cross-National Variation in the Relationship Between Priority Congruence and Satisfaction with Democracy. European Journal of Political Research 54(1): 160–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, A. 1999. Women in the Legislatures and Executives of the World: Knocking at the Highest Glass Ceiling. World Politics 51(4): 547–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosset, J. 2013. Are the Policy Preferences of Relatively Poor Citizens Under-represented in the Swiss Parliament? The Journal of Legislative Studies 19(4): 490–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosset, J., N. Giger, and J. Bernauer. 2013. More Money, Fewer Problems? Cross-Level Effects of Economic Deprivation on Political Representation. West European Politics 36(4): 817–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlozman, K.L., S. Verba, and H.E. Brady. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A., and H. Ingram. 2013. Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy. American Political Science Review 87(2): 334–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwindt-Bayer, L.A., and W. Mishler. 2005. An Integrated Model of Women’s Representation. The Journal of Politics 67(2): 407–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soroka, S.N., and C. Wlezien. 2004. Opinion Representation and Policy Feedback: Canada in Comparative Perspective. Canadian Journal of Political Science 37(3): 531–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stecker, C., and M. Tausendpfund. 2016. Multidimensional Government-Citizen Congruence and Satisfaction with Democracy. European Journal of Political Research 55(3): 492–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stimson, J.A., M.B. MacKuen, and R.S. Erikson. 1995. Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review 89(3): 543–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ura, J.D., and C.R. Ellis. 2008. Income, Preferences, and the Dynamics of Policy Responsiveness. PS. Political Science & Politics 41(4): 785–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbinati, N., and M.E. Warren. 2008. The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science 11(1): 387–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S. 2003. Would the Dream of Political Equality Turn Out to be a Nightmare? Perspectives on Politics 1(4): 663–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., N.H. Nie, and J.-O. Kim. 1978. Participation and Political Equality: A Seven-Nation Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., K.L. Schlozman, and H.E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality. Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M.E. 2002. What Can Democratic Participation Mean Today? Political Theory 30(5): 677–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wlezien, C. 1995. The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending. American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 981–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wlezien, C. 2004. Patterns of Repesentation: Dynamics of Public Preferences and Policy. Journal of Politics 66(1): 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wlezien, C., and S.N. Soroka. 2015. Electoral Systems and Opinion Representation. Representation 51(3): 273–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wängnerud, L. 2009. Women in Parliaments: Descriptive and Substantive Representation. Annual Review of Political Science 12(1): 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Isabelle Guinaudeau for her valuable suggestions on an earlier version of this article. The author also acknowledges support from the Bergen Research Foundation (Grant No. 811309). The usual disclaimers apply.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen, Postboks 7802, 5020, Bergen, Norway

    Yvette Peters

Authors
  1. Yvette Peters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yvette Peters.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peters, Y. Democratic representation and political inequality: how social differences translate into differential representation. Fr Polit 16, 341–357 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-018-0066-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-018-0066-9

Keywords

  • Representation
  • Political inequality
  • Responsiveness
  • Gender
  • Race
  • Income