What explains the dynamics of citizens' satisfaction with democracy? An integrated framework for panel data

被引:16
作者
Kolln, Ann-Kristin [1 ,2 ]
Aarts, Kees [3 ]
机构
[1] Aarhus Univ, Dept Polit Sci, Bartholins Alle 7, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark
[2] Uppsala Univ, Dept Govt, Box 514, S-75120 Uppsala, Sweden
[3] Univ Groningen, Fac Behav & Social Sci, Grote Kruisstr 2-1, NL-9712 TS Groningen, Netherlands
基金
瑞典研究理事会;
关键词
Satisfaction with democracy; Longitudinal framework; Individual-level variation; Panel data; Latent growth curve modelling; PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS; TRUST; INSTITUTIONS; CONGRUENCE; GOVERNMENT; ELECTIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102271
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
Literature on political support broadly offers three micro-level models: socio-economic status, democratic process evaluations, and political performance evaluations explain people's differences in satisfaction with democracy. While tests show that these explanations complement each other, we do not know how. We combine for the first time all three models into one common longitudinal framework by explicitly considering aspects of time. We argue that relatively stable factors, such as socio-economic status, only explain general levels, whereas more time-sensitive factors, such as evaluations, explain differences between citizens at specific points in time. The results of latent growth curve modelling applied to nine-wave panel data support our general hypothesis of a common longitudinal framework. These results also show that economic evaluations play a prominent role as do some (but not all) electoral results. The findings have theoretical and methodological implications, and they offer a new perspective on the meaning of 'satisfaction with democracy'.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]  
Aarts K., 2014, Elections and Democracy: Representation and Accountability, P201
[2]  
Aarts K., 2017, Myth and Reality of the Legitimacy Crisis: Explaining Trends and Cross-National Differences in Established Democracies
[3]   Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter? [J].
Aarts, Kees ;
Thomassen, Jacques .
ELECTORAL STUDIES, 2008, 27 (01) :5-18
[4]  
Anderson ChristopherJ., 2005, Losers' consent: elections and democratic legitimacy
[5]   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
[6]  
Andeweg R.B., 2017, Myth and Reality of the Legitimacy Crisis: Explaining Trends and Cross-National Differences in Established Democracies, DOI DOI 10.1093/OSO/9780198793717.001.0001
[7]   Election outcomes, legislative representation, and satisfaction with democracy [J].
Blais, Andre ;
Morin-Chasse, Alexandre ;
Singh, Shane P. .
PARTY POLITICS, 2017, 23 (02) :85-95
[8]  
Bollen KA, 2006, WILEY SER PROBAB ST, P1
[9]   Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy [J].
Canache, D ;
Mondak, JJ ;
Seligson, MA .
PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, 2001, 65 (04) :506-528
[10]   The political and economic causes of satisfaction with democracy in Spain - a twofold panel study [J].
Christmann, Pablo ;
Torcal, Mariano .
WEST EUROPEAN POLITICS, 2017, 40 (06) :1241-1266