IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v95y2001i01p145-153_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Process Preferences and American Politics: What the People Want Government to Be

Author

Listed:
  • Hibbing, John R.

Abstract

We present evidence of the kind of governmental processes Americans would like to see in Washington. People believe they have been excluded from current processes, but they do not want direct democracy. The extent to which individuals believe actual processes are inconsistent with their own process preferences is an important variable in understanding the current public mood. Moreover, individual-level differences in level of dissatisfaction with democratic processes help explain variations in public approval of government and in willingness to comply with the outputs of government. Of course, many political attitudes and behaviors are influenced by fondness for the policies that government produces, but it is also the case that sentiments and actions are affected by the way government produces those policies. Far from being merely a means to a policy end, governmental process is important in its own right.

Suggested Citation

  • Hibbing, John R., 2001. "Process Preferences and American Politics: What the People Want Government to Be," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(1), pages 145-153, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:95:y:2001:i:01:p:145-153_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055401000107/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Philipp Harms & Claudia Landwehr & Maximilian Lutz & Markus Tepe, 2020. "Deciding how to decide on public goods provision: The role of instrumental vs. intrinsic motives," Working Papers 2018, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    2. Stefan Voigt & Lorenz Blume, 2015. "Does direct democracy make for better citizens? A cautionary warning based on cross-country evidence," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 391-420, December.
    3. Anne Aaken & Stefan Voigt, 2011. "Do individual disclosure rules for parliamentarians improve government effectiveness?," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 301-324, December.
    4. Steven J. Balla & Alexander R. Beck & Elizabeth Meehan & Aryamala Prasad, 2022. "Lost in the flood?: Agency responsiveness to mass comment campaigns in administrative rulemaking," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 293-308, January.
    5. Yunyi Qin, 2023. "Grassroots governance and social development: theoretical and comparative legal aspects," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Stutzer, Alois & Baltensperger, Michael & Meier, Armando N., 2019. "Overstrained citizens? The number of ballot propositions and the quality of the decision process in direct democracy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 483-500.
    7. Ali Abdelzadeh, 2014. "The Impact of Political Conviction on the Relation Between Winning or Losing and Political Dissatisfaction," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, May.
    8. Marco Fölsch, 2024. "Do Affective Polarization and Populism Affect the Support for Holding Referendums?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.
    9. Thomas Bernauer & Steffen Mohrenberg & Vally Koubi, 2020. "Do citizens evaluate international cooperation based on information about procedural and outcome quality?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 505-529, April.
    10. Anna Kern, 2017. "The Effect of Direct Democratic Participation on Citizens’ Political Attitudes in Switzerland: The Difference between Availability and Use," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 16-26.
    11. Claudia Landwehr & Armin Schäfer, 2024. "Who wants descriptive representation, and why?," Working Papers 2407, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    12. Christopher Carman, 2010. "The Process is the Reality: Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and Participatory Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 731-751, October.
    13. Reinhard Heinisch & Carsten Wegscheider, 2020. "Disentangling How Populism and Radical Host Ideologies Shape Citizens’ Conceptions of Democratic Decision-Making," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(3), pages 32-44.
    14. Gamper, C.D. & Turcanu, C., 2007. "On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 298-307, April.
    15. Louis Fucilla, 2021. "Does the Bureaucracy Affect Trust in Government? Evidence from Aggregate Public Opinion," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 69-82, January.
    16. SeoYoun Choi, 2018. "Bureaucratic characteristics and citizen trust in civil service in OECD member nations," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 21(2), pages 114-133, June.
    17. Stutzer, Alois & Baltensperger, Michael & Meier, Armando N., 2018. "Overstrained Citizens?," Working papers 2018/25, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    18. Salil Benegal & Mikhael Shor, 2016. "Procedural Justice and Political Risk," Working papers 2016-30, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.

    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:cup:apsrev:v:95:y:2001:i:01:p:145-153_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.