Looking beyond the district: The representation of geographical sub-constituencies across Europe
| Published date | 01 March 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512116671527 |
| Date | 01 March 2018 |
International Political Science Review
2018, Vol. 39(2) 256 –272
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192512116671527
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
Looking beyond the district: The
representation of geographical
sub-constituencies across Europe
Audrey André
Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
Sam Depauw
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
Abstract
A key question in representation is how institutional settings bring about particular representational roles
among legislators. In this regard, the strategic dilemma that representatives face of whether to represent
all people in the district equally or, alternatively, to prioritize some area within the district, has been vastly
understudied. Using innovative survey data collected in 12 European democracies, we demonstrate that
a striking number of legislators favour representing the interests of their home town over the district
as a whole and that the number of representatives elected by the district critically impacts their choice
as to whom to represent. As district magnitude increases, an increasing number of legislators will not
cater to district opinion but will prioritize the interests of a geographical sub-constituency. These findings
have important implications for the study of political representation, challenging the conventional wisdom
that – compared to single-seat districts – proportional representation tends not to provide geographical
representation.
Keywords
Political representation, geographical sub-constituencies, district magnitude, cross-national legislators’
survey, focus of representation
Introduction
What do legislators see, Fenno (1978) famously asked, when looking at their district? Will they
seek to represent all people in the district or will they concentrate instead on some geographical
subpart thereof? The answer lies in the way the lines on the map define constituencies and
Corresponding author:
Audrey André, Department of Political Science, Université libre de Bruxelles, Avenue Franklin Roosevelt 50,
CP124, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
Email: aandre@vub.ac.be
671527IPS0010.1177/0192512116671527International Political Science ReviewAndré and Depauw
research-article2016
Article
André and Depauw 257
represent people by where they live (Rehfeld, 2005). The simple fact that constituencies are defined
in geographical terms – especially in the context of single-member plurality – creates incentives
for legislators seeking re-election to think of political representation in terms of district opinion.
However, conventional wisdom dictates that proportional representation (PR) does not provide
geographical representation to the same extent (Latner and McGann, 2005). As Cox (1997: 228)
argues, the number of representatives elected by a district – that is, district magnitude – has the
greatest impact on a legislator’s strategic choice as to whom to represent. The district focus of
representation is of minor importance, as one leading comparative study noted (Weßels, 1999),
beyond single-member districts. If the legislator is the district’s sole representative, he or she is
sure to be held to account for not being responsive; whereas multi-member districts are assumed to
be too heterogeneous to constitute a ‘community of interest’ capable of being represented and
accountability is obfuscated, which often leads to shirking on the part of legislators.
However, the failure to look beyond the district, we argue, has caused scholars to underestimate
the extent of geographical representation in PR systems. Rather than spreading their resources
thinly, and, therefore, ineffectively, across large multi-member districts, legislators will not seek to
represent all people in the district but will prioritize only part of the district (Crisp and Desposato,
2004). This notion of a sub-constituency builds on the insights of Fenno (1978) that congressmen
tend to see different circles of support within the district – only the widest of which is the geo-
graphical district. Whereas some legislators think of the other circles of support in partisan, reli-
gious, or ethnic terms, many are aware they disproportionally draw support from particular areas
in the district (see also Jewell, 1982). A large number of studies have confirmed that electoral
support is higher in a legislator’s home town and that distance exacts a toll in areas further afield
where people are unfamiliar with the legislator (for a recent account, see Gimpel et al., 2008). The
import of geography in this regard has long been recognized by parties fielding candidates from all
parts of the district in PR (see Gallagher and Marsh, 1988). But this notion of a geographical sub-
constituency has yet to inform the comparative study of legislators’ representational roles.
This article contributes to the literature examining the degree to which institutional settings
shape political representation by arguing that, while they do not cater to the district opinion, a size-
able number of legislators in multi-member districts prioritize the interests of a geographical sub-
constituency – more specifically, the people residing in their home town – over the majority of the
district. The implication is that research so far may have underestimated the extent of geographical
representation in PR systems. As such, we provide the first – as far as we know – comprehensive,
cross-national test of geographical sub-constituency politics. In particular, we present new data on
legislators’ sub-constituency focus of representation in 12 statewide – and over 50 regional – leg-
islatures across Europe. Moreover, these legislators are elected using the widest variety of electoral
institutions, allowing us to test for their impact. Additionally, the paper makes an important meth-
odological contribution: survey instruments will need to be revised in order to include the repre-
sentation of areas smaller than the district lest we misunderstand the focus and extent of geographical
representation. The article should be of interest to scholars of political representation, democratic
institutions, legislative behaviour, political geography, and comparative politics.
Whom to represent: a geographical sub-constituency focus of
representation?
Different legislators have different focuses of representation. Confronted with the many people
living in their district and the many conflicting demands made on them, legislators have to decide
where to put the emphasis. Facing multiple and often competing principals, they have to decide to
whose views and interests they will be most responsive. Single-member districts, the conventional
To continue reading
Request your trial