IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v53y2005i2p379-402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Responsive Government? Public Opinion and Government Policy Preferences in Britain and Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Binzer Hobolt
  • Robert Klemmemsen

Abstract

The ability of a political system to respond to the preferences of its citizens is central to democratic theory and practice; yet most empirical research on government responsiveness has concentrated on the United States. As a result, we know very little about the nature of government policy responsiveness in Europe and we have a poor understanding of the conditions that affect cross‐national variations. This comparative study examines the relationship between public opinion and policy preferences in the United Kingdom and Denmark during the past three decades. We address two key questions: First, are the government's policy intentions driven by public opinion or vice versa? Second, do political institutions influence the level of government responsiveness? We suggest that public opinion tends to drive the government's policy intentions due to the threat of electoral sanction, and that this is more pronounced in proportional systems than in majoritarian democracies.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Binzer Hobolt & Robert Klemmemsen, 2005. "Responsive Government? Public Opinion and Government Policy Preferences in Britain and Denmark," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 53(2), pages 379-402, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:53:y:2005:i:2:p:379-402
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00534.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00534.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00534.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wlezien, Christopher, 1996. "Dynamics of Representation: The Case of US Spending on Defence," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 81-103, January.
    2. Stimson, James A. & Mackuen, Michael B. & Erikson, Robert S., 1995. "Dynamic Representation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 543-565, September.
    3. Clarke, Harold D. & Stewart, Marianne C. & Whiteley, Paul, 1997. "Tory Trends: Party Identification and the Dynamics of Conservative Support Since 1992," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 299-331, April.
    4. Granger, C. W. J. & Newbold, P., 1974. "Spurious regressions in econometrics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 111-120, July.
    5. Hofferbert, Richard I. & Budge, Ian, 1992. "The Party Mandate and the Westminster Model: Election Programmes and Government Spending in Britain, 1948–85," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 151-182, April.
    6. Miller, Warren E. & Stokes, Donald E., 1963. "Constituency Influence in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(1), pages 45-56, March.
    7. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Frederik Hjorth, 2016. "Who benefits? Welfare chauvinism and national stereotypes," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(1), pages 3-24, March.
    2. Lian, Ying & Dong, Xuefan & Liu, Yijun, 2017. "Topological evolution of the internet public opinion," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 486(C), pages 567-578.
    3. Jackman, Mahalia, 2019. "Religion, contact and ambivalent attitudes towards the rights of gays and lesbians in Barbados," SocArXiv 528bt, Center for Open Science.
    4. Stefan Linde, 2020. "The Politicization of Risk: Party Cues, Polarization, and Public Perceptions of Climate Change Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2002-2018, October.
    5. Jørgen Bølstad, 2015. "Dynamics of European integration: Public opinion in the core and periphery," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 23-44, March.
    6. Sengtha Chay & Nophea Sasaki, 2011. "Using Online Tools to Assess Public Responses to Climate Change Mitigation Policies in Japan," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-13, April.
    7. Femke Van Esch & Rik Joosen & Sabine van Zuydam, 2016. "Responsive to the People? Comparing the European Cognitive Maps of Dutch Political Leaders and their Followers," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(2), pages 54-67.
    8. Daniel Devine & Raimondas Ibenskas, 2021. "From convergence to congruence: European integration and citizen–elite congruence," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 676-699, December.
    9. Xiao Tang & Weiwei Chen & Tian Wu, 2018. "Do Authoritarian Governments Respond to Public Opinion on the Environment? Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-15, February.
    10. Houle, David, 2019. "Un climat démocratique? Le rôle de l’opinion publique dans l’adoption de la tarification du carbone dans les provinces canadiennes," SocArXiv atkz8, Center for Open Science.
    11. Tapp, Alan & Davis, Adrian & Nancarrow, Clive & Jones, Simon, 2016. "Great Britain adults’ opinions on cycling: Implications for policy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 14-28.
    12. Busemeyer, Marius R. & Lergetporer, Philipp & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "Public opinion and the political economy of educational reforms: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 161-185.
    13. Will Jennings & Peter John, 2009. "The Dynamics of Political Attention: Public Opinion and the Queen's Speech in the United Kingdom," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 838-854, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andranik Tangian, 2017. "Policy Representation of a Parliament: The Case of the German Bundestag 2013 Elections," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 151-179, January.
    2. Will Jennings & Peter John, 2009. "The Dynamics of Political Attention: Public Opinion and the Queen's Speech in the United Kingdom," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 838-854, October.
    3. Armèn Hakhverdian, 2009. "Capturing Government Policy on the Left–Right Scale: Evidence from the United Kingdom, 1956–2006," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(4), pages 720-745, December.
    4. Christopher J Williams, 2016. "Issuing reasoned opinions: The effect of public attitudes towards the European Union on the usage of the 'Early Warning System'," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 504-521, September.
    5. Mansbridge, Jane, 2008. "A "Selection Model" of Political Representation," Working Paper Series rwp08-010, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    6. Tangian, Andranik S., 2017. "Policy representation by German parties at the 2017 federal election," Working Paper Series in Economics 107, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    7. Roman Senninger & Daniel Bischof, 2018. "Working in unison: Political parties and policy issue transfer in the multilevel space," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(1), pages 140-162, March.
    8. Mark N. Franklin & Christopher Wlezien, 1997. "The Responsive Public," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(3), pages 347-363, July.
    9. Jørgen Bølstad, 2015. "Dynamics of European integration: Public opinion in the core and periphery," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 23-44, March.
    10. Benček, David, 2016. "Opportunistic candidates and knowledgeable voters: A recipe for extreme views," Kiel Working Papers 2047, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. Richard C. Eichenberg & Richard Stoll, 2003. "Representing Defense," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(4), pages 399-422, August.
    12. Tangian, Andranik S., 2017. "Policy representation by the 2017 Bundestag," Working Paper Series in Economics 108, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    13. Thomas J. Hayes, 2014. "Do Citizens Link Attitudes with Preferences? Economic Inequality and Government Spending in the “New Gilded Age”," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(2), pages 468-485, June.
    14. Kevin M. Quinn & Burt L. Monroe & Michael Colaresi & Michael H. Crespin & Dragomir R. Radev, 2010. "How to Analyze Political Attention with Minimal Assumptions and Costs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 209-228, January.
    15. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2019. "Combining the third vote with traditional elections," Working Paper Series in Economics 132, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    16. Bartels, Larry, 2005. "Economic Inequality and Political Representation," Papers 08-11-2005, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    17. Eivind Hoff-Elimari & Anat Bardi & Simon Matti & Kristina Östman, 2014. "Collective action problems: Disentangling possible feedback loops between government policies and the public’s value-change," European Journal of Government and Economics, Europa Grande, vol. 3(1), pages 24-46, June.
    18. Walter J. Stone & Elizabeth N. Simas, 2010. "Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 371-388, April.
    19. Levent, Korap, 2007. "Modeling purchasing power parity using co-integration: evidence from Turkey," MPRA Paper 19584, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Goodall, Amanda H., 2009. "Highly cited leaders and the performance of research universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1079-1092, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:53:y:2005:i:2:p:379-402. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.