Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-54cdcc668b-pb9vg Total loading time: 0.784 Render date: 2021-03-09T06:03:42.041Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Preferences, Problems and Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2015

Abstract

Scholars studying opinion representation often rely on a survey question that asks about the “most important problem” (MIP) facing the nation. While it is known that MIP responses reflect public priorities, less is known about their connection to policy preferences. This article directly addresses the issue. First, it conceptualizes policy preferences and MIP responses, specifically considering the possibility that the latter may be either policy or outcome based. Second, using aggregate-level data from the United States and the United Kingdom, it then examines the correspondence between public spending preferences and MIP responses over time. The results indicate that MIP responses and spending preferences tap very different things, and that using MIP responses substantially understates the representational relationship between public opinion and policy.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

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

Footnotes

*

Will Jennings is Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom (w.j.jennings@soton.ac.uk). Christopher Wlezien is Hogg Professor of Government, Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1704 USA (wlezien@austin.utexas.edu). Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Annual Meeting of the Elections, Public Opinion and Parties Group of the UK Political Studies Association, Oxford, 2012; the Annual Meeting of the Comparative Agendas Project, Antwerp, 2013; and the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, 2015. We are grateful to Shaun Bevan, Christian Breunig, Christoffer Green-Pedersen, Bryan Jones, Peter Mortensen and the anonymous reviewers as well as our editor, Vera Troeger, for their constructive comments. Online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.3.

References

Achen, Christopher H. 1990. ‘What Does “Explained Variance” Explain? Reply’. Political Analysis 2(1):173184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C.. 2010. ‘Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Members of Congress’. American Political Science Review 104(3):519542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartle, John, and Laycock, Samantha. 2012. ‘Telling More Than They Can Know? Does the Most Important Issue Really Reveal What is Most Important to Voters?Electoral Studies 31(4):679688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartle, John, Dellepiane-Avellaneda, Sebastian, and Stimson, James A.. 2011. ‘The Moving Centre: Preferences for Government Activity in Britain, 1950–2005’. British Journal of Political Science 41(2):259285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bertelli, Anthony M., and John, Peter. 2013. ‘Public Policy Investment: Risk and Return in British Politics’. British Journal of Political Science 43(4):741773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevan, Shaun, and Jennings, Will. 2014. ‘Representation, Agendas and Institutions’. European Journal of Political Research 53(1):3756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, Paul. 2003. ‘The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda’. Political Research Quarterly 56(1):2940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice. 2001. ‘The President’s Legislative Influence from Public Appeals’. American Journal of Political Science 45(2):313329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaqués Bonafont, Laura, and Palau, Anna M.. 2011. ‘Assessing the Responsiveness of Spanish Policymakers to the Priorities of their Citizens’. West European Politics 34(4):706730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne C., and Whiteley, Paul. 2009. ‘The American Voter’s British Cousin’. Electoral Studies 28(4):632641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jeffrey E. 1997. Presidential Responsiveness and Public Policy-Making: The Publics and the Policies that Presidents Choose. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durr, Robert H. 1993. ‘What Moves Policy Sentiment?American Political Science Review 87:158170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Tedin, Kent L.. 2010. American Public Opinion. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geer, John G. 1991. ‘Do Open-Ended Questions Measure “Salient” Issues?Public Opinion Quarterly 55:360370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbs, Douglas A. 1979. ‘The Mass Public and Macro-Economic Policy: The Dynamics of Public Opinion Towards Unemployment and Inflation’. American Journal of Political Science 2(3):705731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., and Klemmensen, Robert. 2005. ‘Responsive Government? Public Opinion and Government Policy Preferences in Britain and Denmark’. Political Studies 53(2):379402.10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00534.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., and Klemmensen, Robert. 2008. ‘Government Responsiveness and Political Competition in Comparative Perspective’. Comparative Political Studies 41(3):309337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., Klemmensen, Robert, and Pickup, Mark. 2008. ‘The Dynamics of Issue Diversity in Party Rhetoric’. Working Paper No. 3, Oxford Centre for the Study of Inequality and Democracy.Google Scholar
Hood, Christopher, Rothstein, Henry, and Baldwin, Robert. 2001. The Government of Risk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, John. 1994. ‘Granger Causality, Rational Expectations and Aversion to Unemployment and Inflation’. Public Choice 80(1/2):921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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(4):847870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, Will, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2011. ‘Distinguishing Between Most Important Problems and Issues’. Public Opinion Quarterly 75:545555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, Will, and John, Peter. 2009. ‘The Dynamics of Political Attention: Public Opinion and the Queen’s Speech in the United Kingdom’. American Journal of Political Science 53(4):838854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, Peter. 2006. ‘Explaining Policy Change: The Impact of the Media, Public Opinion and Political Violence on Urban Budgets in England’. Journal of European Public Policy 13(7):10531068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. 1994. Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2004. ‘Representation and Agenda Setting’. Policy Studies Journal 32(1):124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., Larsen-Price, Heather, and Wilkerson, John. 2009. ‘Representation and American Governing Institutions’. Journal of Politics 71(1):277290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Anthony, and Wybrow, Robert. 2001. British Political Opinion 1937–2000. London: Politicos.Google Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey, and Phillips, Justin. 2012. ‘The Democratic Deficit in the States’. American Journal of Political Science 56(1):148166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindeboom, Gert-Jan. 2012. ‘Public Priorities in Government’s Hands: Corresponding Policy Agendas in the Netherlands?Acta Politica 47(4):443467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Michael D., Budge, Ian, and Pennings, Paul. 2005. ‘Choice Versus Sensitivity: Party Reactions to Public Concerns’. European Journal of Political Research 43(6):845868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, Alan. 1979. ‘Consistency between Constituency Preferences and National Policy Decisions’. American Politics Quarterly 7(1):319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., Bartels, Larry M., and Seawright, Jason. 2013. ‘Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans’. Perspectives on Politics 11(1):5173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1983. ‘Effects of Public Opinion on Policy’. American Political Science Review 77:175190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petry, François. 1999. ‘The Opinion-Policy Relationship in Canada’. Journal of Politics 61(2):541551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart. 2002. Agenda-Setting Dynamics in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: The Public, Politics and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart, Wlezien, Christopher, and McLean, Iain. 2006. ‘Public Expenditure in the UK: How Measures Matter’. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 169:255271.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1991. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald. 1963. ‘Spatial Models and Party Competition’. American Political Science Review 57(2):368377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valenzuela, Sebastián. 2011. ‘Politics Without Citizens? Public Opinion, Television News, the President, and Real-World Factors in Chile, 2000-2005’. The International Journal of Press/Politics 16(3):357381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. ‘The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending’. American Journal of Political Science 39:9811000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 2004. ‘Patterns of Representation: Dynamics of Public Preferences and Policy’. The Journal of Politics 66(1):124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 2005. ‘On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with “Most Important Problem”’. Electoral Studies 24(4):555579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher, and Soroka, Stuart. 2012. ‘Political Institutions and the Opinion-Policy Link’. West European Politics 35:14071432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jennings and Wlezien supplementary material

Tables S1 and S2

File 26 KB

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: 17
Total number of PDF views: 248 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 9th March 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.

Preferences, Problems and Representation
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.

Preferences, Problems and Representation
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.

Preferences, Problems and Representation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *