An Empirical Evaluation of Explanations for Political System Support

被引:7
作者
Broderstad, Troy Saghaug [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bergen, Dept Comparat Polit, Christies gt 15, N-9019 Bergen, Norway
关键词
satisfaction with democracy; procedural fairness; congruence; responsiveness; machine learning; PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS; REGRESSION TREES; SATISFACTION; DEMOCRACY; GOVERNMENT; QUALITY; POLICY; INSTITUTIONS; PERFORMANCE; CONGRUENCE;
D O I
10.1177/10659129231156388
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
The literature that examines cross-national satisfaction with democracy seeks to discover a set of predictors that are associated with evaluations of regime performance. The most common way of examining the determinants of satisfaction with democracy is null hypothesis significance testing. While this approach has merit, this paper argues that the literature, as it stands, can be complemented to gain additional insights. To date, little research has focused on what variables best predict satisfaction. This is important because it helps guide researchers when determining which features to give attention to when devising theories about what causes (changes) in satisfaction. In this paper, I use machine learning algorithms to determine and evaluate the predictive power of variables identified as important in literature. Drawing on the sixth round of the European Social Survey, I find satisfaction with the economy, procedural fairness and responsiveness to be the most important predictors of satisfaction with democracy. These findings justify a stronger focus on the latter two topics in future studies of satisfaction with democracy, which has received little attention in the scholarly literature.
引用
收藏
页码:1542 / 1554
页数:13
相关论文
共 85 条
[1]   Let's put garbage-can regressions and garbage-can probits where they belong [J].
Achen, CH .
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND PEACE SCIENCE, 2005, 22 (04) :327-339
[2]  
Alonso Sonia., 2013, LSE EUROPEAN POLITIC
[3]   Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems [J].
Anderson, CJ ;
Guillory, CA .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 1997, 91 (01) :66-81
[4]   Winning, losing and political trust in America [J].
Anderson, CJ ;
LoTempio, AJ .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2002, 32 :335-351
[5]  
Anderson CJ., 2005, LOSERS CONSENT ELECT
[6]   The Quality of Representation and Satisfaction with Democracy: The Consequences of Citizen-Elite Policy and Process Congruence [J].
Andre, Audrey ;
Depauw, Sam .
POLITICAL BEHAVIOR, 2017, 39 (02) :377-397
[7]   Too much choice, too little impact: a multilevel analysis of the contextual determinants of preference voting [J].
Andre, Audrey ;
Depauw, Sam .
WEST EUROPEAN POLITICS, 2017, 40 (03) :598-620
[8]  
[Anonymous], 1988, The social psychology of procedural justice, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4
[9]  
[Anonymous], 2012, DAT FIL ED 24 NSD NO, DOI [10.21338/NSD-ESS6-2012, DOI 10.21338/NSD-ESS6-2012]
[10]   Democracy in crisis? The declining support for national democracy in European countries, 2007-2011 [J].
Armingeon, Klaus ;
Guthmann, Kai .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL RESEARCH, 2014, 53 (03) :423-442