Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5bf98f6d76-m4xc2 Total loading time: 0.332 Render date: 2021-04-22T00:58:33.418Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

The Effect of Direct Democracy on Political Efficacy: The Evidence from Panel Data Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2015

TAEHEE KIM
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Law, Keio University, Japank.taehee.321@gmail.com
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Does direct democracy enhance political efficacy? This article examines the effect of direct democracy on political efficacy. Normative theorists have suggested that direct democracy has educative effects on citizens, such as promoting political efficacy. While a number of studies have examined the corresponding hypothesis, their empirical findings are not clear-cut. This study attributes the inconsistent results to two problems of the existing studies: the employment of cross-sectional data and the heterogeneity of popular vote issues. This study closes this gap by examining the effect of direct democracy in local politics on political efficacy in a more systematic and controlled way. More concretely, it utilizes the Japanese case: In the first decade of this century, more than 400 Japanese municipalities held a popular vote for the first time because the Japanese national government promoted municipal merger. Therefore, the Japanese case provides multiple popular votes on comparable substantive topics that can be conceived as an homogeneous treatment. By applying multilevel modeling to panel survey data, this study demonstrates the causal effect that the popular vote increases the level of internal political efficacy.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Acock, Alan, Clarke, Harold D., and Stewart, Marianne C. (1985), ‘A New Model for Old Measures: A Covariance Structure Analysis of Political Efficacy’, Journal of Politics, 47 (4): 1062–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almond, Gabriel and Verba, Sidney (1963), The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balch, George (1974), ‘Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept of ‘Sense of Political Efficacy’, Political Methodology, 1 (2): 143.Google Scholar
Barber, Bruce (2003), Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bell, Derrick A. (1978), ‘The Referendum: Democracy's Barrier to Racial Equality’, Washington Law Review, 54: 129.Google Scholar
Biggers, Daniel (2011), ‘When Ballot Issues Matter: Social Issue Ballot Measures and Their Impact on Turnout’, Political Behavior, 33 (1): 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnet, Iris and Frey, Bruno S. (1997), ‘Direct-Democratic Rules: The Role of Discussion’, Kyklos, 47 (3): 341–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun and Donovan, Todd (2000), Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun and Donovan, Todd (2002), ‘Democracy, Institutions and Attitudes about Citizen Influence on Government’, British Journal of Political Science, 32 (2): 371–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Gurin, Gerald, and Miller, Warren (1954), The Voter Decides, Evanston, IL: Row & Peterson.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D. and Acock, Alan (1989), ‘National Elections and Political Attitudes: The Case of Political Efficacy’, British Journal of Political Science, 19 (4): 551–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Kornberg, Allan, and Scotto, Thomas J. (2010), ‘Accentuating the Negative? A Political Efficacy Question-Wording-Experiment’, Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6 (3): 107–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip (1972), ‘Change in the American Electorate’, in Campbell, Angus and Converse, Phillip (eds.), The Human Meaning of Social Change, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Cronin, Thomas (1989), Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, Stephen, Niemi, Richard, and Silver, Glenn (1990), ‘Political Efficacy and Trust: A Report on the NES Pilot Study Items’, Political Behavior, 12 (3): 289314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. and Tufte, Edward R. (1973), Size and Democracy, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunning, Thad (2012), Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyck, Joshua and Lascher, Edward (2009), ‘Direct Democracy and Political Efficacy Reconsidered’, Political Behavior, 31 (3): 401–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyck, Joshua (2012), ‘Racial Threat, Direct Legislation, and Social Trust: Taking Tyranny Seriously in Studies of the Ballot Initiative’, Political Research Quarterly, 65 (3): 615–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finifter, Ada W. and Abramson, Paul R. (1975), ‘City Size and Feelings of Political Competence’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 39 (2): 189–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, Barbara S. (1997), ‘Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote’, American Journal of Political Science, 41 (1): 245–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan and Green, Donald (2008), ‘Field Experiments and Natural Experiments’, in Brady, Henry, Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, and Collier, David (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hajnal, Zoltan, Gerber, Elisabeth, and Louch, Hugh (2002), ‘Minorities and Direct Legislation: Evidence from California Ballot Proposition Elections’, The Journal of Politics, 64 (2): 154–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hero, Rodney and Tolbert, Caroline (2004), ‘Minority Voices and Citizen Attitudes about Government Responsiveness in the American States: Do Social and Institutional Context Matter?’, British Journal of Political Science, 34 (1): 109–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horiuchi, Takumi (2009), ‘Heisei no daigappei no kouka toshiteno touhyouritu no teika’ (The Declining Voter Turnout as Effect of Large Municipal Mergers in the Heisei Era), Jichi Souken (The Research for Local Government), 368 (1): 86108.Google Scholar
Imai, Hajime (2000), Jyumin touhyo (Referendum), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten Publishers.Google Scholar
Lassen, David D. and Serritzlew, Søren (2011), ‘Jurisdiction Size and Local Democracy: Evidence on Internal Political Efficacy from Large-scale Municipal Reform’, American Political Science Review, 105 (2), 238–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macpherson, Collin (1977), The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mattei, Franco and Niemi, Richard G. (2005), ‘Political Efficacy’, in Best, Samuel J. and Radcliff, Benjamin (eds.), Polling America: An Encyclopedia of Public Opinion, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, Matthew and Cutler, Fred (2000), ‘The Effect of Referendums on Democratic Citizens: Information, Politicization, Efficacy and Tolerance’, British Journal of Political Science, 30 (4): 685–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrell, Michael E. (2003), ‘Survey and Experimental Evidence for a Reliable and Valid Measure of Internal Political Efficacy’, Public Opinion Quarterly 67 (4): 589602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca and Williams, Kenneth (2008), ‘Experimentation in Political Science’, in Brady, Henry, Box-Steffensmeier, Janet and Collier, David (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morton, Rebecca and Williams, Kenneth (2010), Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, Richard G., Craig, Stephen C., and Mattei, Franco (1991), ‘Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study’, American Political Science Review 85 (4):1407–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, Carole (1970), Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlozman, Daniel and Yohai, Ian (2008), ‘How Initiatives Don't Always Make Citizens: Ballot Initiatives in the American States, 1978−2004’, Political Behavior, 30 (4): 469–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuck, Andreas and De Vreese, Claes (2011), ‘Public Support for Referendums: The Role of the Media’, West European Politics, 34 (2): 181– 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seabrook, Nicholas, Dyck, Joshua, and Lascher, Edward (2014), ‘Do Ballot Initiatives Increase General Political Knowledge?’, Political Behavior, 1–29.Google Scholar
Shiozawa, Kenichi (2008), ‘Jyumin-touhyo ni okeru sentakusi no settei to touhyou-sanka’ (The Effect of the Choice Set on Referendum and Participation), Keikaku-gyousei (Planning Administration), 31 (1): 7988.Google Scholar
Smith, David (1998), Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel and Tolbert, Caroline (2004), Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel, Tolbert, Caroline, and Keller, Amanda (2010), ‘Reassessing Direct Democracy and Civic Engagement: A Panel Study of the 2008 Election’, Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, State Politics and Policy Quarterly 10th Annual Conference, University of Illinois, Springfield, 5–6 June.Google Scholar
Smith, Mark (2002), ‘Ballot Initiatives and the Democratic Citizen’, Journal of Politics, 64 (3): 892903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle and Vatter, Adrian (2012), ‘Does Satisfaction with Democracy Really Increase Happiness? Direct Democracy and Individual Satisfaction in Switzerland’, Political Behavior, 34 (3): 535–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline, Bowen, Daniel, and Donovan, Todd (2009), ‘Initiative Campaigns: Direct Democracy and Voter Mobilization’, American Politics Research, 37 (1): 155–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenzel, James, Donovan, Todd, and Bowler, Shaun (1998), ‘Direct Democracy and Minorities: Changing Attitudes about Minorities Targeted by Initiative’, in Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline (eds.), Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Yano, Junko, Matsubayashi, Tetsuya, and Nishizawa, Yoshitaka (2005), ‘Jichitai-kibo to jyumin no seiji-sanka (Size of Municipality and Participation)’, Senkyo Gakkai Kiyou (Review of Electoral Studies), 4 (1): 6378.Google Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 27
Total number of PDF views: 297 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Effect of Direct Democracy on Political Efficacy: The Evidence from Panel Data Analysis
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Effect of Direct Democracy on Political Efficacy: The Evidence from Panel Data Analysis
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Effect of Direct Democracy on Political Efficacy: The Evidence from Panel Data Analysis
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *