Advertisement

Norms and Orientations of Political Elites

  • Bernhard Weßels
Chapter

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.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, M. M., & Bierling, G. (2005). Politicians, the Public and Political Ethics: Worlds Apart. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 38, 1003–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachrach, P. (1962). Elite Consensus and Democracy. The Journal of Politics, 24, 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bachrach, P. (1967). The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berle, A. A. (1959). Power Without Property. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  7. Burton, M. G., & Higley, J. (1987). Elite Settlements. American Sociological Review, 52, 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Converse, P. E., & Pierce, R. (1986). Political Representation in France. Cambridge, MA/London: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy. Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Herrera, R. (1992). The Understanding of Ideological Labels by Political Elites: A Research Note. The Western Political Quarterly, 45, 1021–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Higley, J., & Gunther, R. (Eds.). (1992). Elites and Democratic Consolidation in Latin America and Southern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katz, R. S., & Weßels, B. (Eds.). (1999). The European Parliament, National Parliaments, and European Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kitschelt, H., Mansfeldova, Z., Markowski, R., & Tóka, G. (1999). Post-Communist Party Systems. Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kritzer, H. M. (1978). Ideology and American Political Elites. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 484–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McAllister, I. (1991). Party Elites, Voters and Political Attitudes: Testing Three Explanations for Mass-Elite Differences. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 24, 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McAllister, I. (2000). Keeping Them Honest: Public and Elite Perceptions of Ethical Conduct Among Australian Legislators. Political Studies, 48, 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McClosky, H. (1964). Consensus and Ideology in American Politics. The American Political Science Review, 58, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mills, C. W. (1958). Causes of World War Three. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  25. Murray, S. K., & Cowden, J. A. (1999). The Role of “Enemy Images” and Ideology in Elite Belief Systems. International Studies Quarterly, 43, 455–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Powell, G. B. (2000). Elections as Instruments of Democracy. Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Putnam, R. D. (1976). The Comparative Study of Political Elites. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1979). Attitude Stability Among Italian Elites. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 463–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sartori, G. (1978). Anti-Elitism Revisited. Government and Opposition, 13, 58–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sartori, G. (1987). The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Chatham: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  33. Schmitt, H., & Thomassen, J. (Eds.). (1999). Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Shils, E. (1968). The Concept and Function of Ideology. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sniderman, P. M., et al. (1996). The Clash of Rights. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Truman, D. B. (1959). The American System in Crisis. Political Science Quarterly, 74, 481–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walker, J. L. (1966). A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy. The American Political Science Review, 60, 285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Weßels
    • 1
  1. 1.Humboldt University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations