Advertisement

Referendums and Institutional Theory

  • Saskia Hollander
Chapter

Abstract

Most referendum research is inspired by sociological institutionalist theory and traces the use of referendums back to an alleged crisis of representative democracy. The aim of referendum research is usually not to explain why referendums are designed in different ways in different countries, nor why political actors in some countries are more likely to use them. To provide a better understanding of referendum practices, and how that varies among countries, this chapter provides an analytical framework that combines sociological institutionalism with insights from classical institutionalism, which places strong emphasis on a country’s existing institutional context, historical institutionalism, which examines the role of path dependency in choices to institutionalize and use referendums, and rational choice institutionalism, which explains referendums in terms of political actors’ strategic interests.

Keywords

Classical institutionalism Historical institutionalism Sociological institutionalism Rational choice institutionalism 

Bibliography

  1. Albi, A. 2005. EU Enlargement and the Constitutions of Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almond, G.A., and S. Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amenta, E., and K.M. Ramsey. 2010. Institutional Theory. In Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective, ed. K.T. Leicht and J.C. Jenkins. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.Google Scholar
  4. Anckar, D. 2014. Constitutional Referendums in the Countries of the World. Journal of Politics and Law 7 (1): 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anscombe, G.E.M. 1981. Ethics, Religion and Politics: Collected Philosophical Papers of G.E.M. Anscombe. Vol. 3. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Auer, A., and M. Bützer, eds. 2001. Direct Democracy. The Eastern and Central European Experience. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Barber, B.R. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Benoit, K. 2004. Models of Electoral System Change. Electoral Studies 23 (3): 363–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bjørklund, T. 1982. The Demand for Referendum: When Does It Arise and When Does It Succeed. Scandinavian Political Studies 5 (3): 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blais, A., and M.S. Shugart. 2008. Conclusion. In To Keep or to Change First Past the Post? The Politics of Electoral Reform, ed. A. Blais, 184–207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bogdanor, V. 1994. Western Europe. In Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy, ed. D. Butler and A. Ranney, 24–97. Washington, DC: AEI Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Börzel, T., and T. Risse. 2000. When Europe Hits Home: Europeanization and Domestic Change. European Integration Online Papers 4 (15). http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2000-015.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2013.
  13. Bowler, S., T. Donovan, and J.A. Karp. 2002. When Might Institutions Change? Elite Support for Direct Democracy in Three Nations. Political Research Quarterly 55 (4): 731–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2006. Why Politicians Like Electoral Institutions: Self-Interest, Values or Ideology. Journal of Politics 68 (2): 433–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 2007. Enraged or Engaged? Preferences for Direct Citizen Participation in Affluent Democracies. Political Research Quarterly 60 (3): 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bratton, M., and R. Mattes. 2001. Support for Democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or Instrumental. British Journal of Political Science 31 (3): 447–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Budge, I. 1996. The New Challenge of Direct Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Butler, D., and A. Ranney. 1978. Referendums: A Comparative Study of Practice and Theory. Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  19. Cain, B.E., R.J. Dalton, and S.E. Scarrow, eds. 2003. Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Campbell, J.L. 1998. Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy. Theory and Society 27 (3): 377–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Capoccia, G., and R.D. Keleman. 2007. The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism. World Politics 59 (3): 341–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Closa, C. 2007. Why Convene Referendums? Explaining Choices in EU Constitutional Politics. Journal of European Public Policy 14 (8): 1311–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cronin, T.E. 1999. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Crum, B., and S. Hollander. 2011. Can the EU Referendum Genie Be Put Back in the Bottle? Paper Presented at the RECON WP2-Workshop on ‘European Constitutional Pluralism and the Constitution of the Union’, Madrid, November 10–11, on File with the Author.Google Scholar
  25. Da Cunha Rezende, F. 2011. Do Institutions Produce Institutional Change? The New Historical Institutionalism and Analytic Innovations in the Theory of Change. Brazilian Political Science Review 5 (1): 129–152.Google Scholar
  26. Dalton, R.J. 1984. Cognitive Mobilization and Partisan Dealignment in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Journal of Politics 46 (1): 264–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ———. 2004. Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dalton, R.J., W.P. Burklin, and A. Drummond. 2001. Public Opinion and Direct Democracy. Journal of Democracy 12 (4): 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Daudt, H., and D.W. Rae. 1976. The Ostrogorski Paradox: A Peculiarity of Compound Majority Decision. European Journal of Political Research 4 (4): 391–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. DiMaggio, P.J., and W.W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Donovan, T., and J.A. Karp. 2006. Popular Support for Direct Democracy. Party Politics 12 (5): 671–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Doorenspleet, R. 2004. The Structural Context of Recent Transitions to Democracy. European Journal of Political Research 43 (3): 309–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dür, A., and G. Mateo. 2011. To Call or Not to Call? Political Parties and Referendums on the EU’s Constitutional Treaty. Comparative Political Studies 44 (4): 468–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Easton, D. 1953. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Fiorino, N., and R. Ricciuti. 2007. Determinants of Direct Democracy. CESifo Working Paper No. 2035. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_2035.html. Accessed 18 June 2015.
  37. Freeden, M. 1998. Is Nationalism a Distinct Ideology? Political Studies 46 (4): 748–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Geddes, B. 1994. Politician’s Dilemma: Building State Capacity in Latin America. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  39. Grabbe, H. 2001. How Does Europeanization Affect CEE Governance? Conditionality, Diffusion and Diversity. Journal of European Public Policy 8 (4): 1013–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Guler, I., M.F. Guillén, and J.M. MacPherson. 2002. Global Competition, Institutions, and the Diffusion of Organizational Practices: The International Spread of the ISO 9000 Quality Certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly 47 (2): 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hall, P.A., and R.C.R. Taylor. 1996. Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies 44 (5): 936–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Häusermann, S., and H. Schwander. 2009. Identifying Outsiders Across Countries: Similarities and Differences in the Patterns of Dualisation. REC-WP Working Papers on the Reconciliation of Work and Welfare in Europe No. 09-2009. Edinburgh: RECWOWE Publication, Dissemination and Dialogue Centre. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1489943. Accessed 5 June 2014.
  43. Hibbing, J.R., and E. Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hooghe, M., and K. Deschouwer. 2011. Veto Players and Electoral Reform in Belgium. West European Politics 34 (3): 626–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hooghe, L., and G. Marks. 2004. European Integration and Democratic Competition. Paper Prepared for the virtual Europolity Conference of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. http://www.fes.de/europolity/finalversionhooghText.PDF. Accessed 15 Feb 2014.
  46. Huntington, S.P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  47. Inglehart, R. 1971. The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change in Post-Industrial Societies. American Political Science Review 65 (4): 991–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. ———. 1977. The Silent Revolution. Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Jacobs, K. 2011. The Power or the People: Direct Democratic and Electoral Reforms in Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands (diss.). Ede: Ponsen en Looijen.Google Scholar
  50. Jung, S. 1996. Lijpharts Demokratietypen und die Direkte Demokratie. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 6 (3): 623–645.Google Scholar
  51. Katz, R.S. 1997. Democracy and Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. ———. 2005. Why Are There so Many (or so Few) Electoral Reforms? In The Politics of Electoral Systems, ed. M. Gallagher and P. Mitchell, 57–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Katz, R.S., and P. Mair. 1995. Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party. Party Politics 1 (1): 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Koole, R. 1996. Cadre, Catch-all or Cartell? Party Politics 2 (4): 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kriesi, H. 2014. The Political Consequences of the Economic Crisis in Europe: Electoral Punishment and Popular protest. In Mass Politics in Tough Times: Opinions, Votes and Protest in the Great Recession, ed. N. Bermeo and L.M. Bartels, 297–233. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. LeDuc, L. 2003. The Politics of Direct Democracy: Referendums in Global Perspective. Toronto: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
  57. Lijphart, A. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian & Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. ———. 1992. Democratization and Constitutional Choices in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland 1989–1991. Journal of Theoretical Politics 4 (2): 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. ———. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Lucardie, P. 1997. Vox Populi, Vox Diaboli? Het Debat over het Referendum in de Nederlandse Politieke Partijen. In Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen 1996, ed. G. Voerman, 109–128. Groningen: Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen.Google Scholar
  61. ———. 2010. Nederlandse Politieke Partijen en het Referendum: Wordt de Links- Rechts Tegenstelling doorbroken? Civis Mundi, September 28.Google Scholar
  62. Mahoney, J., and K. Thelen. 2010. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Marks, G. 1992. Rational Sources of Chaos in Democratic Transition. American Behavioral Scientist 35 (4/5): 397–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Marxer, W., and Z.T. Pállinger. 2007. ‘System Contexts and System Effects on Direct Democracy – Direct Democracy in Liechtenstein and Switzerland Compared. In Direct Democracy in Europe: Developments and Prospects, ed. Z.T. Pállinger, B. Kaufmann, W. Marxer, and T. Schiller, 12–29. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Maslow, A.H. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  66. Milgrom, P., and J. Roberts. 1992. Economics, Organization and Management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  67. Morel, L. 2001. The Rise of Government-Initiated Referendums in Consolidated Democracies. In Referendum Democracy: Citizens, Elites and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns, ed. M. Mendelsohn and A. Parkin, 47–64. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mudde, C. 2004. The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition 39 (4): 542–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. ———. 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Norris, P., ed. 1999. Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Oppermann, K. 2011. The Strategic Use of Referendum Pledges in Two-level Games: The Case of Discretionary Commitments to Popular Consultations on European Integration. Paper Prepared for Presentation at the 3rd Global International Studies Conference, University of Porto, August 17–20. http://www.wiscnetwork.org/porto2011/papers/WISC_2011-659.pdf
  72. Osbun, L.A. 1985. The Problem of Participation: A Radical Critique of Contemporary Democratic Theory. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  73. Pállinger, Z.T., B. Kaufmann, W. Marxer, and T. Schiller, eds. 2007. Direct Democracy in Europe: Developments and Prospects. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  74. Pateman, C. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pierson, P. 1996. The New Politics of the Welfare State. World Politics 48 (2): 143–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. ———. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pierson, P., and T. Skocpol. 2002. Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science. In Political Science: The State of the Discipline, ed. I. Katznelson and H.V. Milner, 693–721. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  78. Pilet, J.-B. 2007. Changer pour Gagner? Les Réformes des Lois Électorales en Belgique. Brussels: Editions de l’Universite de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  79. Przeworski, A. 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Putnam, R.D. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 42 (3): 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Qvortrup, M. 2005. A Comparative Study of Referendums: Government by the People. 2nd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  82. ———. 2006. Democracy by Delegation: The Decision to Hold Referendums in the United Kingdom. Representation 42 (1): 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rahat, G. 2008. The Politics of Regime Structure Reform in Democracies. Israel in Comparative and Theoretical Perspective. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  84. ———. 2009. Elite Motives for Initiating Referendums: Avoidance, Addition and Contradiction. In Referendums and Representative Democracy: Responsiveness, Accountability, and Deliberation, ed. M. Setälä and T. Schiller, 98–111. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  85. Reed, S.R., and M.F. Thies. 2001. The Causes of Electoral Reform in Japan. In Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? ed. M.S. Shugart and M.P. Wattenberg, 152–172. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Renwick, A. 2010. The Politics of Electoral Reform: Changing the Rules of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Renwick, A., C. Hanretty, and D. Hine. 2009. Partisan Self-interest and Electoral Reform: The New Italian Electoral Law of 2005. Electoral Studies 28 (3): 437–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Riker, W.H. 1982. The Two-Party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science. The American Political Science Review 76 (4): 753–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Roberts, A. 2006. What Kind of Democracy Is Emerging in Eastern Europe? Post-Soviet Affairs 22 (1): 37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Schmidt, V.A. 2006. Democracy in Europe: The EU and National Polities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. ———. 2008. Bringing Ideas and Discourse Back into the Explanation of Change in Varieties of Capitalism and Welfare States. Centre for Global Political Economy, Working Paper No. 2, 1–25, May 2008. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=cgpe-wp02-vivien-a-schmidt.pdf&site=359. Accessed 15 Feb 2013.
  92. Setälä, M. 1999. Referendums and Democratic Government: Normative Theory and the Analysis of Institutions. Houndmills: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. ———. 2006. On the Problems of Responsibility and Accountability in Referendums. European Journal of Political Research 45 (4): 699–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sewell, W.H., Jr. 2006. Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  95. Strøm, K. 1990. A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 565–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Thelen, K., and S. Steinmo. 1992. Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics. In Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, ed. S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, and F. Longstreth, 1–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Tsebelis, G. 1988. Nested Games: The Cohesion of French Electoral Coalitions. British Journal of Political Science 18 (2): 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. ———. 1999. Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies: An Empirical Analysis. The American Political Science Review 93 (3): 591–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. ———. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Van Kessel, S. 2015. Populist Parties in Europe. Agents of Discontent? Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Vatter, A. 2002. Kantonale Demokratien im Vergleich: Entstehungsgründe, Interaktionen und Wirkungen politischer Institutionen in den Schweizer Kantonen. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. ———. 2009. Lijphart Expanded: Three Dimensions of Democracy in Advanced OECD Countries? European Journal of Political Review 1 (1): 125–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Walker, M.C. 2003. The Strategic Use of Referendums: Power, Legitimacy and Democracy. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Williamson, O.E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  105. WRR (Scientific Council for Government Policy). 2007. Rediscovering Europe in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saskia Hollander
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Director of Knowledge Management, The BrokerDen HaagThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Research fellow, Department of Public Administration and Political ScienceRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations