Description of Workshop for ECPR Joint Session of Workshops 2011, St Gallen, Switzerland.

Description of Workshop for ECPR Joint Session of Workshops 2011, St Gallen, Switzerland. Title of Workshop: Off-Election Democracy Interactions between Representatives and Represented in a Changing World Workshop directors: Peter Esaiasson, Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden Hanne Marthe Narud, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Norway Abstract The goal of this workshop is to assess the quality of modern representative democracies in terms of responsiveness off election. By responsiveness off election we mean the level of contact and information transformation between citizens, their elected representatives and the political system between popular elections. How does this interaction currently work, and to what extent has it changed along with current transformation processes such as globalization, mediatization and individualization? The purpose of the workshop is integrative. Aspects of off election democracy are studied in different subfields of the discipline, for example political participation, protest politics, opinion-policy research, legislative behavior, strategic media frames and output legitimacy. By focusing on a common theme, we seek connections between phenomena usually studied in isolation from each other. Topic of the Workshop Representative democracy is a complex system of government. Its dualism of elitist and egalitarian features (as described by Manin, 1997 and Urbinati, 2006) is reflected in Hanna Pitkin s well-known definition of representation as acting in the interest of the represented in a manner responsive to them (Pitkin 1967:209). It is the exclusive right of representatives to decide in collective matters, but while exercising their privilege representatives are obliged to react to citizen wishes and demands. Accordingly, a core democratic value to this system of government is responsiveness (e.g. Dahl 1971). The goal of this workshop is to assess the quality of modern democracies in terms of responsiveness off election, that is the level of contact and information transformation between citizens, their elected representatives and the political system between popular elections. How does this interaction currently work, and to what extent has it changed along with current transformation processes such as globalization, mediatization and individualization? 1

The theme of the workshop highlights three aspects of interactions between representatives and represented. First, responsiveness is not confined merely to periods of elections or the election campaign, it is a dynamic process. It involves continuous interactions between representatives and the represented. Elections are important checkpoints in this process, but the relationship goes on outside this formal institution for citizens control. Second, responsiveness is a multifaceted process which involves actions and reactions from both representatives and the represented. Citizens and their organizations express demands that motivate representatives to react, but representatives also take actions that generate responses from citizens. Third, responsiveness is a promise of response, not of accommodation. In a well functioning representative system, elected representatives are obliged to communicate their reason for action, but not necessarily to adapt to the current views and opinions of citizens and groups of citizens (Pitkin 1967:209-10; Esaiasson 2010). Leadership and accountability are also key aspects of representative democracy. The purpose of the workshop is integrative. With more or less explicit references to representative democracy and responsiveness, aspects of off election democracy is studied in several different subfields of the discipline, for example political participation, protest politics, opinion-policy research, legislative behavior, strategic media frames, output legitimacy, and principal-agent theorizing. By focusing on a common theme of interactions between representatives and the represented, we seek to connect phenomena usually studied in isolation from each other. While we are open for alternative ideas and perspectives, we identify four areas of research as particularly interesting for the workshop: First, conceptual analysis; second, empirical analysis that depart from the perspective of the citizens (bottom-up processes); third, empirical analysis that depart from the perspective of the elected representatives (topdown processes); fourth, empirical analysis that involves responsiveness from the perspective of the political system (system responsiveness). Below we spell out these areas more in detail. With regard to conceptual analysis, normative democratic theory is a fertile starting point (e.g. Berelson 1952; Benhabib 1996; Fung 2007). As for the electoral part of democracy, good citizens should, for example, turn out to vote, be well informed when voting, and vote as demanded by the common good (e.g. Berelson 1952), while good representatives should make it possible for voters to hold them responsible on election day (Przeworski, Stokes and Manin 1999). The challenge here is to develop corresponding normative criteria for processes in off-election democracy. Ultimately, the results of this conceptual work will generate new research questions. 2

Concerning the second area, the bottom up perspective, one important empirical research field often studied in isolation from other subfields is that of citizen protest (e.g. Koopmans 1999; Klandermans 2004; Walgrave and Rucht 2009). Under which conditions do citizens form protest groups, and how effective are the different types of protests at influencing political decisions? Which are the conditions that trigger overt protests? How important, for example, is the media s manner of covering an event? An additional key factor is that much of the interaction between citizens and decision-makers occurs via public authorities, who themselves are often forced to navigate between legal obligations, political interests, and public opinions. Turning to the third area of interest, the top down perspective, an important aspect of system responsiveness relates to the contacts representatives have with their electorates. Which categories of citizens do representatives think they should be in contact with, and what citizens are they actually in contact with (e.g. Fenno 1978)? A crucial question in this context concerns the representatives intentions when communicating with citizens between elections. Are they actively trying to inform and win the citizens over, or are they passively letting the citizens inform, and perhaps influence, them? Are they perhaps doing both, or something in between, such as seeking a mandate, legitimacy, or reliable support? In cases where the passivity alternative seems valid, the next question is whether the representatives, according to their own perceptions, should focus on the citizens factual arguments, or instead consider the citizens views as valuable information about prevailing opinions. Finally, important questions relates to the outcome and consequences of interactions between representatives and the represented (e.g. Eriksson, MacKuen and Stimson 2002; Wlezien 2004; Holmberg 1997). How do the representatives and the political system react and respond to various types of citizen protests and actions (e.g. Gilljam, Persson and Karlsson 2010)? To what extent are their reactions in line with the principles of equality, equal treatment, and the realization of public will (e.g. Teorell 2006; Verba and Nie 1972)? Furthermore, how do the citizens react to various democracy-enhancing measures and to contacts from above? And how do the citizens, in turn, react to the representatives reactions to citizen protest (output legitimacy)? While we acknowledge that most normative accounts of representative democracy actually focus on dynamic processes, theories of responsiveness being a typical example, most empirical research, however, fails to design studies that can successfully trace the full complexity of interactions between representatives and the represented (a continuous and multifaceted process that promise response but not necessarily accommodation). Hence, one 3

additional objective of this workshop is to discuss possible venues for further empirical research on off election democracy. Relation to existing research Given its integrative purpose, this workshop relates to several important literatures. Obviously, of major significance is research that explicitly focuses on political representation. Broadly speaking there are two traditions of interest: one more individualistic that originates in the seminal work of Miller and Stokes (1963) (see also e.g Converse and Pierce 1978; Miller et al 1999), and one that focus on the relationship between opinion and policy in the aggregate (e.g. Erikson, MacKuen and Stimson 2003). The former typically approach responsiveness from a cross-sectional perspective investigating whether the opinions of representatives are congruent over geographical and political units (Achen 1977; Valen and Narud, 2007; Golder and Stramski 2009; but see Holmberg 1997). The latter typically study whether public policy change following a change in public opinion (e.g. Wlezien 2004; Jennings 2009; Lax and Phillips 2009). Further studies of relevance for the communication between representatives and the represented off-election departs from the work of Fenno (1978) and his notion Home Style. Other important areas of research focus on the role of citizens in representative democracy. Responsiveness is a key democratic value for the entire field of political participation (e.g. Verba and Nie 1972; Verba. Schlozman and Brady 1995; van Deth, Montero and Westholm 2007). This notwithstanding, it is only rarely that scholars in the field study whether and how elected representatives and the political system at large actually respond to citizen participation (Teorell 2006). A similar characterization holds for the parallel and growing field of protest politics (e.g. Koopmans 1999; Klandermans 2004; Norris, Walgrave and Aelst 2005; Walgrave and Rucht 2009). Participants We seek contribution from both established and emerging scholars interested in this topic. Since our purpose is integrative, we expect papers from different subfields of political science, particularly from scholars involved in the various branches of comparative politics (parties, elections, protest politics etc.), but also certain aspect of public policy would seem relevant. 4

Type of papers We invite papers that address off-election communication between representatives and represented from a variety of methodological approaches and theoretical perspectives. We especially welcome work that integrates findings from different subfields of the discipline. As already indicated, one important objective with this workshop is to discuss possible empirical venues to the study of off-election democracy, and the methodological challenges attached to it. Hence, papers with various types of case-studies that help illuminate these challenges are of interest, as well as papers including citizen studies, studies on political representatives and bureaucrats, and protest studies. We would also welcome papers that address this issue from various normative perspectives. Biographical notes. Peter Esaiasson is professor in political science at the University of Gothenburg. His research interests are within elections, democratic decision-making, ethnic heterogeneity and methodology. He is the author of eight books, including Representation From Above (1996, Dartmouth, with Sören Holmberg) and Beyond Westminster and Congress (2000, Ohio State University Press, co-edited with Knut Heidar). His articles has appeared, or is forthcoming, for example, in the journals British Journal of Political Science, European Political Science Review, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, European Journal of Communication, European Journal of Social Psychology, Scandinavian Political Studies, and Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. Hanne Marthe Narud is professor in political science at the University of Oslo. Her main research interests lie in elections and public opinion studies, the attitudes and behavior of political elites, various aspects of political representation, and studies of the formation of cabinet coalitions. She has published articles in a number of international journals, and her books include titles like: Challenges Facing Representative Democracy: Voters, Parties and Public Opinion (ed. with T. Aalberg, 1999), Party Sovereignty and Citizen Control. Selecting Candidates for Parliamentary Elections in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway (ed. with M.N. Pedersen and H. Valen, 2002), and Elections, Parties and Political Representation (ed. with A. Krogstad, 2004). 5

Bibliography Achen, Christopher. 1977. Measuring Representation. Perils of the Correlation Coefficient" American Journal of Political Science, 21:808-15. Berelson, Bernhard. 1952. Democratic Theory and Public Opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly 16:313-330. Benhabib, Seyla, red 1996b. Democracy and Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Converse, Phil, and Roy Pierce. 1986. Political Representation in France. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy. Participation and Opposition. Yale: Yale University Press. Eriksson, Robert, MacKuen, Michael, and Stimson, James. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Esaiasson, Peter. 2010. Is Citizen Involvment Always A Plus?. In Erik Amnå (ed) New Forms of Citizen Participation. Normative Implications. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style. House Members in Their District. Little: Brown. Fung 2007. Democratic Theory and Political Science: A Pragmatic Method of Constructive Engagement. American Political Science Review 101:443-58. Gilljam, Mikael, Mikael Persson and David Karlsson. 2010. Representatives Attitudes towards Citizen Protests. The Impact of Ideology, Parliamentary Position and Experiences. Paper prepared for delivery at the MPSA National Conference, Chicago, April 2010. Golder, Matt and Jacek Stramski. 2009. Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions. American Journal of Political Science 54:90-106. Holmberg, Sören. 1997. "Dynamic Opinion Representation", Scandinavian Political Studies 20, 265-83. Jennings, Will. 2009. The Public Thermostat, Political Responsiveness and Error-Correction: Border Control and Asylum in Britain, 1994-2007. British Journal of Political Science 39:847-870. Klandermans, Bert. 2004. The Demand and Supply of Participation: Social-Psychological Correlates of Participation in Social Movements. In David Snow, Sara Soule and Herman Kriesi (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Koopmans, Ruud. 1999. Political. Opportunity. Structure. Some Splitting to Balance the Lumping. Sociological Forum 14:93-105. Lax, Jeffrey and Justin Phillips. 2009. Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness. American Political Science Review 103:367-86. Manin, B. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, Warren, and Donald Stokes. 1963. Constituency Influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57:45-56. Miller, Warren, Roy Pierce, Jacques Thomassen, Richard Herrera, Sören Holmberg, Peter Esaiasson and Bernhard Wessels 1999. Policy Representation in Western Democracies Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norris, Pippa, Stefaan Walgrave and Peter Aelst. 2005. Who Demonstrates? Antistate Rebels, Conventional Participants, or Everyone?. Comparative Politics 37:189-205. Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. 6

Przeworski, Adam, Susan Stokes and Bernhard Manin. eds. 1999. Democracy, Accountability and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Teorell, Jan. 2006. Political Participation and Three Theories of Democracy: A Research Inventory and Agenda, European Journal of Political Research 45: 787 810, 2006. Urbinati, Nadia 2006. Representative Democracy. Principles and Genealogy. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Valen, Henry and Hanne Marthe Narud. 2007. The Conditional Party Mandate. A Model for the Study of Mass and Elite Opinion Patterns. European Journal of Political Research, vol. 46:293-318. van Deth, Jan, José Ramón Montero and Anders Westholm. eds. 2007. Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge, 2007. Verba, Sidney & Norman Nie 1972. Participation in America Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman & Henry E Brady (1995): Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Walgrave, Stefan and Dieter Rucht. 2009. Protest Politics. Demonstration Against the War on Iraq in the US and Western Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wlezien, Christopher. 2004. Patterns of Representation: Dynamics of Public Preferences and Policy. Journal of Politics 66:1-24. Name and address of institutions: Prof. Peter Esaiasson Prof. Hanne Marthe Narud Department of Political Science Department of Political Science University of Gothenburg University of Oslo, P.O. 711 Box 1097 Blindern, SE 411 27 Gothenburg 0317 Oslo, Sweden Norway E-mail : Peter.Esaiasson@pol.gu.se E-mail: h.m.narud@stv.uio.no Tel. : +46 31 786 12 22 Tel.: +47 22844504 Fax : +46 31 786 45 99 Fax: +47 22854411 7