Abstract
Attitudes and orientations of mass publics gain regular public attention in the mass media and social sciences. Much less attention is paid to the orientations and norms of political elites. Research provides quite some evidence that there is interplay between political institutions, the incentives they offer and orientations and norms of political elites. Results show that institutional context gradually influences attitudinal adjustments as shown by transformation studies and that incentives of the electoral system have an impact on how representatives understand their job and how they represent. In addition, the roles political elites take in organizations or political institutions have a socializing effect on norms and behavior. These experiences also contribute to more firm belief systems and stronger ideological conceptualization of politics as part of the professionalization of politics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Allen, N., & Birch, S. (2012). On Either Side of the Moat? Elite and Mass Attitudes Towards Right and Wrong. European Journal for Political Research, 5, 89–116.
Atkinson, M. M., & Bierling, G. (2005). Politicians, the Public and Political Ethics: Worlds Apart. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 38, 1003–1028.
Bachrach, P. (1962). Elite Consensus and Democracy. The Journal of Politics, 24, 439–452.
Bachrach, P. (1967). The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique. Boston: Little Brown.
Barnum, D. G., & Sullivan, J. L. (1990). The Elusive Foundations of Political Freedom in Britain and the United States. The Journal of Politics, 52, 719–739.
Berle, A. A. (1959). Power Without Property. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Burton, M. G., & Higley, J. (1987). Elite Settlements. American Sociological Review, 52, 295–307.
Burton, M., Gunther, R., & Higley, J. (1992). Introduction: Elite Transformations and Democratic Regimes. In J. Higley & R. Gunther (Eds.), Elites and Democratic Consolidation in Latin America and Southern Europe (pp. 1–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Converse, P. E., & Pierce, R. (1986). Political Representation in France. Cambridge, MA/London: Belknap Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy. Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Esaiasson, P. (2000). How Members of Parliament Define Their Task. In P. Esaiasson & K. Heidar (Eds.), Beyond Westminster and Congress: The Nordic Experience (pp. 51–82). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Herrera, R. (1992). The Understanding of Ideological Labels by Political Elites: A Research Note. The Western Political Quarterly, 45, 1021–1035.
Higley, J., & Gunther, R. (Eds.). (1992). Elites and Democratic Consolidation in Latin America and Southern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmberg, S. (2000). Issue Agreement. In P. Esaiasson & K. Heidar (Eds.), Beyond Westminster and Congress: The Nordic Experience (pp. 155–179). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Jackson, M., & Smith, R. (1996). Inside Moves and Outside Views: An Australian Case Study of Elite and Public Perceptions of Political Corruption. Governance, 9, 23–42.
Katz, R. S., & Weßels, B. (Eds.). (1999). The European Parliament, National Parliaments, and European Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kitschelt, H., Mansfeldova, Z., Markowski, R., & Tóka, G. (1999). Post-Communist Party Systems. Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kritzer, H. M. (1978). Ideology and American Political Elites. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 484–502.
McAllister, I. (1991). Party Elites, Voters and Political Attitudes: Testing Three Explanations for Mass-Elite Differences. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 24, 237–268.
McAllister, I. (2000). Keeping Them Honest: Public and Elite Perceptions of Ethical Conduct Among Australian Legislators. Political Studies, 48, 22–37.
McClosky, H. (1964). Consensus and Ideology in American Politics. The American Political Science Review, 58, 361–382.
Miller, A. H., Hesli, V. L., & Reisinger, W. M. (1995). Comparing Citizen and Elite Belief Systems in Post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 1–40.
Miller, A. H., Hesli, V. L., & Reisinger, W. M. (1997). Conceptions of Democracy Among Mass and Elite in Post-Soviet Societies. British Journal of Political Science, 27, 157–190.
Mills, C. W. (1958). Causes of World War Three. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Murray, S. K., & Cowden, J. A. (1999). The Role of “Enemy Images” and Ideology in Elite Belief Systems. International Studies Quarterly, 43, 455–481.
Powell, G. B. (2000). Elections as Instruments of Democracy. Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (1976). The Comparative Study of Political Elites. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1979). Attitude Stability Among Italian Elites. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 463–494.
Rohrschneider, R. (1994). Report from the Laboratory: The Influence of Institutions on Political Elites’ Democratic Values in Germany. The American Political Science Review, 88, 927–941.
Rohrschneider, R. (1996). Institutional Learning Versus Value Diffusion: The Evolution of Democratic Values Among Parliamentarians in Eastern and Western Germany. The Journal of Politics, 58, 422–446.
Sartori, G. (1978). Anti-Elitism Revisited. Government and Opposition, 13, 58–80.
Sartori, G. (1987). The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Chatham: Chatham House.
Schmitt, H., & Thomassen, J. (Eds.). (1999). Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shils, E. (1968). The Concept and Function of Ideology. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan.
Sniderman, P. M., et al. (1991). The Fallacy of Democratic Elitism: Elite Competition and Commitment to Civil Liberties. British Journal of Political Science, 21, 349–370.
Sniderman, P. M., et al. (1996). The Clash of Rights. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sullivan, J. L., et al. (1993). Why Politicians Are More Tolerant: Selective Recruitment and Socialization Among Political Elites in Britain, Israel, New Zealand and the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 23, 51–76.
Truman, D. B. (1959). The American System in Crisis. Political Science Quarterly, 74, 481–497.
Walker, J. L. (1966). A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy. The American Political Science Review, 60, 285–295.
Weßels, B. (1999). Whom to Represent? Role Orientations of Legislators in Europe. In H. Schmitt & J. Thomassen (Eds.), Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union (pp. 209–234). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weßels, B. (2018). Norms and Orientations of Political Elites. In: Best, H., Higley, J. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Political Elites. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51904-7_33
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51904-7_33
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-51903-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-51904-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)