Satisfaction with Democracy in Perspective: Anchoring Today By Looking Back and Forward

Author:

van Houwelingen Pepijn1ORCID,Dekker Paul1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. The Netherlands Institute for Social Research

Abstract

Abstract The question of how satisfied people are with the workings of their national democracy has oft en been criticized but is still the international standard measurement of satisfaction with democracy (SWD). In this paper we explore the benefits of adding questions about remembered and expected satisfaction ‘ten years ago’ and ‘ten years from now’, as were asked in the ISSP citizenship surveys of 2004 and 2014. Based on the data from seventeen European countries, we find that national samples: ■ do not show universal ‘nostalgia’, ■ produce good guesses of past satisfaction but show no futurist insights, ■ give retrospective judgments that do not correlate well with changes in expert opinions, ■ give retrospective judgments that do not correlate well with changes in the share of the populist vote. At the individual level we find: ■ that in almost all countries expected satisfaction with democracy ten years from now is a better predictor of political trust and feelings of political efficacy than satisfaction with democracy today, ■ that in almost all countries expected satisfaction with democracy ten years from now is a better predictor of the preference for populist voting (in one national case study), we note that Poland is the only country in our sample where citizens were, in 2014, retrospectively more positive about the development of their democracy, probably due to the severe economic conditions Poland faced in 2004. Overall, we do not find evidence for the relevance of retrospective judgements, but some evidence for the relevance of prospective judgements. We recommend further research into individual changes in present satisfaction and perceptions of these changes to better understand the frames of reference of ‘satisfaction with democracy today’.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Ocean Engineering

Reference37 articles.

1. Anderson, C. (2002). Good questions, dubious inferences, and bad solutions: Some further thoughts on satisfaction with democracy. Binghamton University. Binghamton.

2. Ariely, G. (2013). Public administration and citizen satisfaction with democracy: cross-national evidence International Review of Administrative Sciences 79(4), 747–766.

3. Beckett, M., Da Vanzo, J., Sastry, N., Panis, C., & Peterson, C. (2001). The quality of retrospective data: An examination of long-term recall in a developing country. Journal of Human Resources, 36(3), 593–625.

4. Bühlmann, M, Heyne, L., Merkel, W., Müller, L., Ruth, S. and B. Weßels (2015). Democracy barometer: a new approach to evaluating the quality of democratic systems. Democratic Audit Blog (09 Apr 2015). www.democraticaudit.com

5. Canache, D., Mondak, J., & Seligson, M. (2001). Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public opinion quarterly, 65(4), 506–528.

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3