IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hrv/hksfac/25302405.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ideological Congruence and Citizen Satisfaction: Evidence from 25 Advanced Democracies

Author

Listed:
  • Mayne, Quinton
  • Hakhverdian, Armen

Abstract

Ideological congruence is an important and popular measure of the quality of political representation. The closer the match between the preferences of the public and those of elected elites, the better representative democracy is thought to function. Relatively little attention has been paid however to the effects of ideological congruence on political judgement. We address this gap by examining whether citizens use egocentric or sociotropic judgments of congruence to evaluate democratic performance. Using a variety of congruence measures, we find that citizens are unmoved by sociotropic congruence; however, our analyses provide clear evidence that egocentric congruence boosts citizen satisfaction, especially among political sophisticates. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for the study of ideological congruence and political representation.

Suggested Citation

  • Mayne, Quinton & Hakhverdian, Armen, 2016. "Ideological Congruence and Citizen Satisfaction: Evidence from 25 Advanced Democracies," Scholarly Articles 25302405, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    • Handle: RePEc:hrv:hksfac:25302405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/25302405/Mayne%20&%20Hakhverdian%20-%20Ideological%20Congruence%20and%20Citizen%20Satisfaction.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Banducci, Susan A. & Karp, Jeffrey A., 2003. "How Elections Change the Way Citizens View the Political System: Campaigns, Media Effects and Electoral Outcomes in Comparative Perspective," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 443-467, July.
    2. Leckie, George & Charlton, Chris, 2013. "runmlwin: A Program to Run the MLwiN Multilevel Modeling Software from within Stata," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 52(i11).
    3. Hakhverdian, Armen & Mayne, Quinton, 2012. "Institutional Trust, Education, and Corruption: A Micro-Macro Interactive Approach," Scholarly Articles 9639965, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Stacy G. Ulbig, 2007. "Gendering Municipal Government: Female Descriptive Representation and Feelings of Political Trust," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1106-1123, December.
    5. Warwick, Paul & Zakharova, Maria, 2013. "Measuring the Median: The Risks of Inferring Beliefs from Votes," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 157-175, January.
    6. André Blais & François Gélineau, 2007. "Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 425-441, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Brad T. Gomez & J. Matthew Wilson, 2006. "Cognitive Heterogeneity and Economic Voting: A Comparative Analysis of Four Democratic Electorates," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(1), pages 127-145, January.
    9. Anderson, Christopher J. & Guillory, Christine A., 1997. "Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(1), pages 66-81, March.
    10. ANDERSON, CHRISTOPHER J. & LoTEMPIO, ANDREW J., 2002. "Winning, Losing and Political Trust in America," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 335-351, April.
    11. André Blais & François Gélineau, 2007. "Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(2), pages 425-441, June.
    12. Anderson, Christopher J. & Mendes, Silvia M., 2006. "Learning to Lose: Election Outcomes, Democratic Experience and Political Protest Potential," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 91-111, January.
    13. Shane Singh & Ignacio Lago & André Blais, 2011. "Winning and Competitiveness as Determinants of Political Support," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 92(3), pages 695-709, September.
    14. Matt Golder & Jacek Stramski, 2010. "Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 90-106, January.
    15. Kinder, Donald R. & Kiewiet, D. Roderick, 1981. "Sociotropic Politics: The American Case," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 129-161, April.
    16. Moehler, Devra C., 2009. "Critical Citizens and Submissive Subjects: Election Losers and Winners in Africa," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 345-366, April.
    17. Adrian D. Pantoja & Gary M. Segura, 2003. "Does Ethnicity Matter? Descriptive Representation in Legislatures and Political Alienation Among Latinos," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 84(2), pages 441-460, June.
    18. Kramer, Gerald H., 1983. "The Ecological Fallacy Revisited: Aggregate- versus Individual-level Findings on Economics and Elections, and Sociotropic Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(1), pages 92-111, March.
    19. McDONALD, MICHAEL D. & MENDES, SILVIA M. & BUDGE, IAN, 2004. "What Are Elections For? Conferring the Median Mandate," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 1-26, January.
    20. Dalton, Russell J., 1994. "Communists and Democrats: Democratic Attitudes in the Two Germanies," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(4), pages 469-493, October.
    21. Weissberg, Robert, 1978. "Collective vs. Dyadic Representation in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 535-547, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Marlene Mauk, 2022. "Electoral integrity matters: how electoral process conditions the relationship between political losing and political trust," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1709-1728, June.
    2. 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.
    3. John, Peter & Sjoberg, Fredrik M, 2020. "Partisan responses to democracy promotion – Estimating the causal effect of a civic information portal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    4. Jonathan Rose & Cees van der Eijk, 2022. "The World Isn’t Fair, but Shouldn’t Elections Be? Evaluating Prospective Beliefs about the Fairness of Elections and Referenda," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-27, May.
    5. Carolina Plescia & Jean-François Daoust & André Blais, 2021. "Do European elections enhance satisfaction with European Union democracy?," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 94-113, March.
    6. Wagner, Alexander F. & Schneider, Friedrich & Halla, Martin, 2009. "The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe -- A panel analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 30-41, March.
    7. Matthew J. Lebo & Janet M. Box‐Steffensmeier, 2008. "Dynamic Conditional Correlations in Political Science," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 688-704, July.
    8. Angeline G. A. Nariswari & Qimei Chen, 2016. "Siding with the underdog: is your customer voting effort a sweet deal for your competitors?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 701-713, December.
    9. Barbara Dluhosch & Daniel Horgos & Klaus W. Zimmermann, 2016. "EU enlargement and satisfaction with democracy: a peculiar case of immiserizing growth," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 273-298, September.
    10. Christiansen, Petter, 2018. "Public support of transport policy instruments, perceived transport quality and satisfaction with democracy. What is the relationship?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 305-318.
    11. Dominik Schraff & Frank Schimmelfennig, 2020. "Does differentiated integration strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU? Evidence from the 2015 Danish opt-out referendum," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 590-611, December.
    12. Jason Barabas, 1998. "Wage Erosion, Economic Assessments, and Social Welfare Opinions," JCPR Working Papers 56, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
    13. Stiers, Dieter & Dassonneville, Ruth, 2018. "Affect versus cognition: Wishful thinking on election day," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 199-215.
    14. Cendales, Andrés & Mora, Jhon & Arroyo, Santiago, 2015. "Sobre las democracias locales en el Pacífico colombiano y su incidencia en la política pública de agua potable en el periodo 2008-2011," Revista Lecturas de Economía, Universidad de Antioquia, CIE, issue 83, pages 161-192, February.
    15. Newton, Kenneth, 2005. "Support for democracy: Social capital, civil society and political performance," Discussion Papers, Research Group Civil Society, Citizenship and Political Mobilization in Europe SP IV 2005-402, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    16. Jonathon M. Clegg, 2016. "Perception vs Reality: How Does The British Electorate Evaluate Economic Performance of Incumbent Governments In The Post War Period?," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _143, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    17. Jeffrey S. DeSimone & Courtney LaFountain, 2007. "Still the Economy, Stupid: Economic Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election," NBER Working Papers 13549, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. André Blais & Eric Guntermann & Vincent Arel-Bundock & Ruth Dassonneville & Jean-François Laslier & Gabrielle Péloquin-Skulski, 2020. "Party preference representation," Post-Print halshs-03230127, HAL.
    19. Matt Golder & Jacek Stramski, 2010. "Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 90-106, January.
    20. Michael Lewis-Beck & Mary Stegmaier, 2013. "The VP-function revisited: a survey of the literature on vote and popularity functions after over 40 years," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 157(3), pages 367-385, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hrv:hksfac:25302405. 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: Office for Scholarly Communication (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ksharus.html .

    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.