Public Preferences for Parliamentary Representation in the UK: An Overlooked Link?
| Published date | 01 March 2006 |
| Author | Christopher Jan Carman |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00568.x |
| Date | 01 March 2006 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Public Preferences for Parliamentary
Representation in the UK:
An Overlooked Link?
Christopher Jan Carman
University of Glasgow
Representation, both as a normative concept and a political process, has generated a rich literature across
several national contexts.To develop our understanding of representational systems,scholars tend to assess
the degree of policy congruence between parliamentarians and constituents as well as the role orienta-
tions adopted by elected parliamentarians and legislators. This paper contends that in order to have a
complete understanding of representational systems,we must consider not only the representational roles
adopted by parliamentarians, but also the publics’ preferences regarding parliamentary representation.
Specifically, I posit that individuals have attitudes about the type and degree of relationship that they
believe should exist between elected parliamentarians, parties and constituents. Using data from a 2003
survey of the British public,I test the related hypotheses that individuals have meaningful and predictable
preferences for the representational relationship they share with their members of parliament (MPs) and
that these representational preferences in turn influence how individuals evaluate MPs. Finding support
for both hypotheses,I argue that developing an understanding of normative public preferences for politi-
cal representation is an important and overlooked component in advancing models of public support of
both elected officials and governing institutions.
Political theorists and empirical analysts alike have devoted innumerable volumes
to the discernment of the basis, functioning and consequences of the represen-
tational relationships shared by constituents and their elected representatives.The-
orists have sought to uncover the foundations of ‘the concept of representation’
(Pitkin, 1967) and how these foundations may translate into modern under-
standings of representative government. Other scholars have sought to use both
intensive qualitative and intricate quantitative analytic techniques to pick apart
the representational relationship, focusing on the linkages between constituents,
elected officials and mediating institutions, and how these linkages influence
public policy. These studies may be juxtaposed with those that delve into the
role(s) that members of parliament (MPs) or congress, depending on the national
context, believe they should adopt in fulfilling their duties as a ‘representative’ of
their respective constituencies.
However, as noted by Malcolm Jewell in 1985, there remains a significant lacuna
in the representation literature.Despite the ongoing empir ical research designed
to untangle the sources and functioning of allocation, service and policy repre-
sentation as viewed by electoral elites, there has been little effort expended on
discerning how the general public views the representational relationship they
share with their parliamentarians and legislators. In his 1985 review of the
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2006 VOL 54, 103–122
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Political Studies Association
104 CHRISTOPHER JAN CARMAN
representation literature Jewell poses the questions, ‘What roles do constituents
expect their legislators to perform? Do they have clearly defined expectations?
Relatively few efforts have been made to answer these questions ...’(Jewell, 1985,
p. 111). In the twenty years that passed since Jewell posed those questions, few
studies addressed constituent expectations of the representational relationship.This
project begins to fill this significant gap in the extant literature on parliamentary
representation.
This is not a purely esoteric, nor ‘academic,’ pursuit. It is well documented that
developed countries share a common trend: public confidence in governments
and governing institutions is declining (Dalton, 1999). One possible explanation
for this decline posits that there is a gap between what the public expects from
their government in terms of representational relationships and what they receive
(see Mendez-Lago and Martinez, 2002). In a sense, the public may perceive an
increasing amount of agency loss between themselves (the principals) and their
governmental agents. Understanding normative public expectations of the rep-
resentational relationship may help to further our understanding of diminished
public support for governing institutions. Similarly, if we switch from an aggre-
gated to an individual level, understanding preferences for representation may
help us further our understanding of constituent perceptions of their parlia-
mentarians. Again, if a gap exists between the sort of representation individuals
prefer and the sort that they perceive that they receive,this may assist us in under-
standing evaluations of MPs.
Of course, addressing this entire argument is well beyond the scope of a single
paper.The modest goal of this paper is to establish that ‘the public’ does indeed
have preferences for the representational1relationship they share with their MP2
and that these preferences may influence their judgments of the political world.
This general proposition is supported with data from a 2003 survey of the UK
public.The paper proceeds in several stages. First, I discuss previous research on
representational linkages, both in the UK and elsewhere. Next I turn to a dis-
cussion of the possible covariates with representational attitudes.The data and
statistical models are discussed in the third section. Finally, I conclude with a dis-
cussion of the findings and where they might take the study of representation.
Public Preferences for Representation?
Jacques Thomassen (1994) has observed that while the study of ‘representation’
in the US is all but ubiquitous, in most countries with strong party systems, it is
generally seen as a less interesting research topic.Americans, owing to the much
greater variation in the influence of political parties in their legislative institu-
tions, have invested a great deal of energy in evaluating the degree of dyadic and
collective correspondence between the policy preferences of constituents and
their elected representatives (for example, Hill and Hurley, 1999; Hurley, 1989;
We issberg, 1978; 1979). While British scholars have not been nearly as fixated
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Political Studies Association
To continue reading
Request your trial