Input from Whom? Public Reactions to Consultation Measures
| Author | Anthony Kevins |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321720956327 |
| Published date | 01 May 2022 |
| Date | 01 May 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720956327
Political Studies
2022, Vol. 70(2) 281 –303
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0032321720956327
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Input from Whom? Public
Reactions to Consultation
Measures
Anthony Kevins
Abstract
Most legislation neither affects nor interests citizens equally. But should this variation in interest
and affectedness impact who gets to influence policy reforms? This article examines US public
opinion on this issue using a national survey experiment varying both the policy outcome (a bill’s
passage/failure) and the type of constituency input granted by elected representatives (none/
constituency surveys/targeting interested constituents/targeting affected constituents). It then
compares reactions across treatment groups, examining the impact of outcome favourability as
well as external and internal political efficacy. Results suggest that granting constituents explicit
policy influence consistently affected perceived responsiveness in the expected manner, but that the
different consultation procedures had more varied effects on decision acceptance. Furthermore,
where the procedures impacted decision acceptance, they pushed the reactions of both the pleased
and the displeased towards more muted responses. Finally, similar ‘cushion effects’ were present
when external and internal political efficacy were incorporated into the analysis.
Keywords
representation, public consultations, decision acceptance, perceived responsiveness, decision-
making procedures
Accepted: 14 August 2020
Should citizens have equal say in policy-making decisions, or is it okay for elected repre-
sentatives to grant special influence to certain groups? This article investigates the
American public’s thoughts on this question by examining perceived responsiveness and
decision acceptance in the face of different decision-making processes. In doing so, it
focuses on two deviations from an equal-influence ‘median-voter’ approach to represen-
tation (see Bochsler and Hänni, 2017): the first granting special influence to interested
constituents, and the second granting special influence to constituents who would be dis-
proportionately affected by the reform if it were passed.
School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
Corresponding author:
Anthony Kevins, School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Loughborough University, Epinal Way,
Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK.
Email: a.kevins@lboro.ac.uk
956327PSX0010.1177/0032321720956327Political StudiesKevins
research-article2020
Article
282 Political Studies 70(2)
Research broadly suggests that people prefer elected officials who put the policy
stances of their constituents ahead of their own preferences and those of their party
(Lapinski et al., 2016; Wolak, 2017). The preferred target of this substantive constitu-
ency representation is much less clear, however: while citizens are broadly committed
to procedural democratic equality and fairness (e.g. Bøggild and Petersen, 2016;
Doherty and Wolak, 2012), there are good reasons to suspect that they do not neces-
sarily want their representatives to reflect median opinion on every policy. Intra-
constituency variation in policy interest and affectedness seem especially likely to
shape beliefs about the ‘correct’ distribution of democratic influence – but the direc-
tion of these potential effects is less clear. Interest in a policy might be welcomed as a
marker of healthy political involvement, or it might be treated sceptically as a sign of
pernicious emotional and/or partisan attachment. Similarly, policy-affected groups
might be thought to deserve extra input – due to the outsized impact the reform would
have on these groups – or less input – due to a perceived conflict between the self-
interest of affected citizens and the interests of the broader collectivity (see Kevins
and Robison, Forthcoming).
To the extent that individuals care about the policy influence of interested and affected
constituents, then, different approaches to consulting constituents may either increase or
decrease decision acceptance. Yet, despite a long line of research on abstract preferences
towards how democracy should work (e.g. Goldberg et al., 2020; Hibbing and Theiss-
Morse, 2002) and on reactions to decision-making processes (e.g. Esaiasson et al., 2019;
Van Den Bos et al., 1997), our understanding of these effects is limited. Studying reac-
tions to different consultation procedures thus gives us an opportunity to better under-
stand citizens’ ‘intuitive political theory’ (e.g. DeScioli and Bokemper, 2018) as well as
the potential influence of these intuitions on patterns of unequal representation (e.g.
Soroka and Wlezien, 2008).
To that end, this article presents the results of a survey experiment fielded in the United
States using Qualtrics’ Internet panels (quota sampled to reflect the general population’s
age and gender distributions). The experiment centres around a hypothetical income tax
reform: picking up on conservative claims for greater ‘fairness’ in the American federal
tax system, the bill would increase the tax burden on the bottom quartile of the income
distribution and pass the tax savings onto other taxpayers. The treatments then allow us
to compare reactions to policy outcomes emanating from different consultation proce-
dures, whereby elected representatives either (1) do not explicitly consult the population
(the control group); (2) give equal weight to their constituents’ preferences, using polling
(i.e. constituency surveys) to decide how to vote; (3) give special weight to the views of
constituents interested enough in the bill’s fate to attend a town-hall meeting; or (4) give
special weight to the views of constituents who would be disproportionately impacted by
the bill if it were to become law.
This approach allows us to study reactions to constituent input and influence, with the
ultimate goal of exploring representational preferences. The article thus builds most
directly upon research examining citizens’ normative democratic preferences (e.g.
Bengtsson and Mattila, 2009; Rapeli, 2015; Wojcieszak, 2014) and their specific proce-
dural preferences (e.g. Dixon et al., 2016; Esaiasson et al., 2017; Skitka et al., 2003).
Following past work, the article then unpacks the role of three factors that might shape
reactions to these decision-making procedures and the policies that emerge from them:
outcome favourability, and external and internal political efficacy (e.g. Coffé and Michels,
2014; Esaiasson et al., 2019; Landwehr and Steiner, 2017).
To continue reading
Request your trial