Introduction

THE LITERATURE SEEKING TO EXPLAIN THE POLITICAL LEGITIMACY OF democratic governance has expanded in scope and sophistication in recent years, including both cultural and institutional approaches (see, for example, Thomassen 1999; Aarts and Thomassen 2008; Thomassen 2009b; Thomassen and Van der Kolk 2009). Evaluations of the regime have long been regarded as central to ideas of political legitimacy and Eastonian conceptions of system support. As Thomassen emphasizes, the legitimacy of liberal democracy is derived from public evaluations of the performance of government, as well as from issues of identity, representation and accountability (Thomassen 2009c). The idea that regime performance matters, at least at some level, for public satisfaction with the workings of democratic governance, is the explanation favored by rational choice theories. This study considers the underlying assumptions and claims embodied in both the process and policy versions of these accounts. At first sight, the rational choice argument appears straightforward, but what criteria might the public use to evaluate government performance? Is the contemporary record of the regime compared against public expectations or independent indices? Party manifestos and leadership promises or the past performance of successive administrations? Neighboring countries or global conditions? There is no consensus in the research literature and several alternative factors may prove important in this regard, each generating certain testable propositions.

The first part of this study focuses upon process accounts which emphasize that judgements of regime performance are based primarily upon retrospective evaluations of the quality of underlying democratic procedures, exemplified by the perceived fairness of elections, the responsiveness and accountability of elected representatives, and the honesty and probity of public officials (paragraph 7.3). This goes beyond discontent with particular decisions or outcomes to tap more deep-rooted perceptions about how democracy works. The second part considers alternative policy accounts, suggesting that retrospective evaluations of the overall substantive policy record of successive governments are important, such as whether citizens experience effective public services for schools and health care, rising living standards, and domestic security (paragraph 7.4). This study reviews and unpacks the assumptions underlying each of these accounts in the literature and then lays out the empirical evidence using multilevel analysis and performance indicators suitable to test each of these claims in almost fifty societies worldwide.