IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v7y2019i3p98-111.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Saward’s Concept of the Representative Claim Revisited: An Empirical Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Petra Guasti

    (Research Unit Democratic Innovations, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany)

  • Brigitte Geissel

    (Research Unit Democratic Innovations, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany)

Abstract

Representation is a process of making, accepting, or rejecting representative claims (Disch, 2015; Saward, 2014). This groundbreaking insight challenged the standard assumption that representative democracy can be reduced to elections and activities of elected representatives (Pitkin, 1967). It broadened the scope of representative democracy to encompass representation activities beyond those authorized by elections, transformed our thinking and provided a new perspective, putting claims and their reception into the center. This paradigm shift erased the distinction between elected and non-elected representatives and disclosed the potential of non-elected actors’ claims to represent (Andeweg, 2003; Kuyper, 2016; Rosanvallon & Goldhammer, 2008; Saward, 2006, 2009; Van Biezen & Saward, 2008). In spite of this lively debate, we identify an important gap in the literature: while this paradigmatic shift inspired many authors, conceptual frameworks that can be applied for systematic empirical analysis of real-life cases are missing. In this article, we fill this gap and propose frameworks for assessing and validating a variety of real-life claims. Our study provides empirical substance to the ongoing theoretical debates, helping to translate the mainly theoretical ‘claim approach’ into empirical research tools. It helps to transform the conventional wisdom about what representation can (not) be and shines a new light on the potential future of (claims on) representation.

Suggested Citation

  • Petra Guasti & Brigitte Geissel, 2019. "Saward’s Concept of the Representative Claim Revisited: An Empirical Perspective," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 98-111.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v7:y:2019:i:3:p:98-111
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.v7i3.2103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/2103
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.v7i3.2103?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. Mansbridge, Jane, 2017. "Recursive Representation in the Representative System," Working Paper Series rwp17-045, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    2. Mansbridge, Jane, 2011. "Clarifying the Concept of Representation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 621-630, August.
    3. Viola Joschko & Luis Glaser, 2019. "A New Approach to Map and Quantify Representative Claims and Measure Their Validation: A Case Study Analysis," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 137-151.
    4. Mansbridge, Jane, 2003. "Rethinking Representation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(4), pages 515-528, November.
    5. Sartori, Giovanni, 1970. "Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 1033-1053, December.
    6. Saward, Michael, 2014. "Shape-Shifting Representation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 108(4), pages 723-736, November.
    7. Andeweg, Rudy B., 2003. "Beyond representativeness? Trends in political representation," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 147-161, May.
    8. Petra Guasti & Debora Rezende de Almeida, 2019. "Claims of Misrepresentation: A Comparison of Germany and Brazil," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 152-164.
    9. Kuyper, Jonathan W., 2016. "Systemic Representation: Democracy, Deliberation, and Nonelectoral Representatives," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(2), pages 308-324, May.
    10. Petra Guasti & Debora Rezende de Almeida, 2019. "Claims of Misrepresentation: A Comparison of Germany and Brazil," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 152-164.
    11. Viola Joschko & Luis Glaser, 2019. "A New Approach to Map and Quantify Representative Claims and Measure Their Validation: A Case Study Analysis," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 137-151.
    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. Petra Guasti & Brigitte Geissel, 2019. "Rethinking Representation: Representative Claims in Global Perspective," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 93-97.
    2. Viola Joschko & Luis Glaser, 2019. "A New Approach to Map and Quantify Representative Claims and Measure Their Validation: A Case Study Analysis," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 137-151.

    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. Petra Guasti & Brigitte Geissel, 2019. "Saward’s Concept of the Representative Claim Revisited: An Empirical Perspective," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 98-111.
    2. Petra Guasti & Brigitte Geissel, 2019. "Rethinking Representation: Representative Claims in Global Perspective," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 93-97.
    3. Petra Guasti & Brigitte Geissel, 2019. "Rethinking Representation: Representative Claims in Global Perspective," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 93-97.
    4. Petra Guasti & Debora Rezende de Almeida, 2019. "Claims of Misrepresentation: A Comparison of Germany and Brazil," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 152-164.
    5. Wilhelm Lehmann, 2011. "Electoral Representation at the European level and its Institutional Design: A reappraisal of recent reform plans," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 23, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    6. Petra Guasti & Debora Rezende de Almeida, 2019. "Claims of Misrepresentation: A Comparison of Germany and Brazil," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 152-164.
    7. Ine Gevers & August Mulder & Walter Daelemans, 2024. "Towards a large scale analysis of claims: developing a machine learning method for detecting and classifying politicians’ claims of representation," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 917-961, April.
    8. Emiliana De Blasio & Michele Sorice, 2018. "Populism between direct democracy and the technological myth," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Fischer, Harry W., 2016. "Beyond Participation and Accountability: Theorizing Representation in Local Democracy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 111-122.
    10. Xinyu Zhang & Yue Liao, 2023. "A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis of Populism Research (2000–2020)," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    11. Gustav Lidén, 2013. "What about theory? The consequences on a widened perspective of social theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 213-225, January.
    12. Sungmoon Kim, 2015. "Confucianism, Moral Equality, and Human Rights: A Mencian Perspective," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(1), pages 149-185, January.
    13. Peters, Ina, 2014. "Too Abstract to Be Feasible? Applying the Grounded Theory Method in Social Movement Research," GIGA Working Papers 247, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    14. Pursey Heugens & J. Oosterhout & Muel Kaptein, 2006. "Foundations and Applications for Contractualist Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 211-228, October.
    15. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    16. Heß, Moritz & Scheve, Christian von & Schupp, Jürgen & Wagner, Aiko & Wagner, Gert G., 2018. "Are Political Representatives More Risk-Loving Than the Electorate? Evidence from German Federal and State Parliaments," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 4, pages 1-7.
    17. Thomas Denk, 2013. "How to measure polyarchy with Freedom House: a proposal for revision," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 3457-3471, October.
    18. Johanne Døhlie Saltnes & Martijn Mos, 2022. "Understanding the EU’s Response to LGBTI Rights Violations: Inter-Institutional Differences and Social Sanctions," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(1), pages 79-89.
    19. Fischer, Julia & Van de Bovenkamp, Hester M., 2019. "The challenge of democratic patient representation: Understanding the representation work of patient organizations through methodological triangulation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 109-114.
    20. Tero Erkkilä, 2023. "Global indicators and AI policy: Metrics, policy scripts, and narratives," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(5), pages 811-839, September.

    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:cog:poango:v7:y:2019:i:3:p:98-111. 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: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    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.