Advertisement

Direct Democracy and the Constitution

  • Bruno S. Frey
  • Alois Stutzer
  • Susanne Neckerman
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Public Choice book series (SIPC, volume 23)

Abstract

This chapter applies a comparative view to evaluate initiatives and referendums in the context of Constitutional change. Instruments of direct democratic decision making are compared to those of a purely representative democratic system in which members of parliament decide Constitutional issues like basic rights, the scope of democratic decision making and market exchange, the organization of government and the judiciary, and the federal structure of the country. Section 2 briefly describes aspects of direct democratic decision making that we deem critical from a Constitutional economics perspective. In particular, we hint to changes in the political process if citizens are directly involved through initiatives and referendums.

Keywords

Median Voter Direct Democracy Representative Democracy Vote Participation Swiss Canton 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Benz, Matthias and Alois Stutzer. 2004. Are voters better informed when they have a larger say in politics? Evidence for the European Union and Switzerland. Public Choice 119: 31–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blankart, Charles B. 1992. Bewirken Referenden und Volksinitiativen einen Unterschied in der Politik? Staatswissenschaften und Staatspraxis 3: 509–524.Google Scholar
  3. Blomberg, S. Brock, Gregory D. Hess and Akila Weerapana. 2004. The impact of voter initiatives on economic activity. European Journal of Political Economy 20: 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohnet, Iris and Bruno S. Frey. 1994. Direct-democratic rules: The role of discussion. Kyklos 47: 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowler, Shaun and Todd Donovan. 1998. Demanding choices: Opinion, voting, and direct democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  6. Butler, David and Austin Ranney (eds.). 1994. Referendums around the world. The growing use of direct democracy. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cronin, Thomas E. 1989. Direct democracy. The politics of initiative, referendum and recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dryzek, John S. 1990. Discursive democracy: Politics, policy and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dubois, Philip L. and Floyd Feeney. 1998. Lawmaking by initiative: Issues, options and comparisons. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Eichenberger, Reiner. 1999. Mit direkter Demokratie zu besserer Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik: Theorie und Empirie. In: Adäquate Institutionen: Voraussetzung für “gute” und bürgernahe Politik? Schriftenreihe der Hochschule Speyer, ed. Hans Herbert von Arnim, 259–288. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  11. Feld, Lars P. and Bruno S. Frey. 2002. Trust breeds trust: How taxpayers are treated. Economics of Governance 3: 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feld, Lars P. and Gebhard Kirchgässner. 2001. The political economy of direct legislation: Direct democracy and local decision-making. Economic Policy 16: 329–367.Google Scholar
  13. Feld, Lars P. and John G. Matsusaka. 2003. Budget referendums and government spending: Evidence from Swiss cantons. Journal of Public Economics 87: 2703–2724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feld, Lars P. and Marcel R. Savioz. 1997. Direct democracy matters for economic performance: An empirical investigation. Kyklos 50: 507–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frey, Bruno S. 1994. Direct democracy: Politico-economic lessons from Swiss experience. American Economic Review 84: 338–348.Google Scholar
  16. Frey, Bruno S. 1997. A Constitution for knaves crowds out civic virtues. Economic Journal 107: 1043–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frey, Bruno S. 2008. Happiness, a revolution in economics. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Frey, Bruno S. and Gebhard Kirchgässner. 1993. Diskursethik, Politische Ökonomie und Volksabstimmungen. Analyse und Kritik 15: 129–149.Google Scholar
  19. Frey, Bruno S. and Alois Stutzer. 2000. Happiness, economy and institutions. Economic Journal 110: 918–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frey, Bruno S. and Alois Stutzer. 2002a. Happiness and economics. How the economy and institutions affect human well-being. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Frey, Bruno S. and Alois Stutzer. 2002b. What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature 40: 402–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frey, Bruno S. and Alois Stutzer. 2005. Beyond outcomes: Measuring procedural utility 57: 90–111.Google Scholar
  23. Frey, Bruno S., Marcel Kucher and Alois Stutzer. 2001. Outcome, process and power in direct democracy. New econometric results. Public Choice 107: 271–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frey, Bruno S., Matthias Benz and Alois Stutzer. 2004. Procedural utility: Not only what, but also how matters. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 160: 377–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1997. The populist paradox: Interest groups and the promise of direct legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gerber, Elisabeth R. and Simon Hug. 2001. Legislative response to direct legislation. In referendum democracy: Citizens, elites and deliberation in referendum campaigns, eds. Matthew Mendelsohn and Andrew Parkin, 88–108. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  27. Habermas, Jürgen. 1983. Diskursethik - Notizen zu einem Begründungsprozess. In Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln, ed. Jürgen Habermas, 53–125. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  28. Hansen, Stephen, Thomas R. Palfrey and Howard Rosenthal. 1987. The downsian model of electoral participation: Formal theory and empirical analysis of the constituency size effect. Public Choice 52: 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirchgässner, Gebhard, Lars P. Feld and Marcel R. Savioz. 1999. Die direkte Demokratie: Modern, erfolgreich, entwicklungs- und exportfähig. Basel et al.: Helbing and Lichtenhahn/Vahlen/Beck.Google Scholar
  30. Kaufmann, Bruno, Rolf Büchi and Nadja Braun. 2008. Handbuch zur Direkten Demokratie. Bülach: Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe.Google Scholar
  31. Magleby, David B. 1984. Direct legislation. Voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  32. Matsusaka, John G. 1995. Fiscal effects of the voter initiative: Evidence from the last 30 years. Journal of Political Economy 103: 587–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matsusaka, John G. 2004. For the many or the few: The initiative, public policy, and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pommerehne, Werner W. 1983. Private versus öffentliche Müllabfuhr: Nochmals betrachtet. Finanzarchiv 41: 466–475.Google Scholar
  35. Pommerehne, Werner W. 1990. The empirical relevance of comparative institutional analysis. European Economic Review 34: 458–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pommerehne, Werner W. and Hannelore Weck-Hannemann. 1996. Tax rates, tax administration and income tax evasion. Public Choice 88: 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Riker, William H. and Peter C. Ordeshook. 1973. An introduction to positive political theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Torgler, Benno. 2003. Direct democracy matters: Tax morale and political participation. In National tax association papers and proceedings, Orlando, 2002, 50–59. Washington: National Tax Association.Google Scholar
  39. Tullock, Gordon. 1967. Toward a mathematics of politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  40. Waters, M. Dane. 2003. The initiative and referendum almanac. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno S. Frey
    • 1
  • Alois Stutzer
    • 2
  • Susanne Neckerman
    • 3
  1. 1.CREMA (Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts), Department of EconomicsUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Business and EconomicsUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  3. 3.Center for European Research in Economics and University of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations