Substance or Behavior as Links? Explaining Representational Judgments

  • Mirjam Dageförde
  • Eric Kerrouche
  • Corentin Poyet
Part of the New Perspectives in German Political Studies book series (NPG)


This chapter follows a subjective approach for evaluating representation and examines “citizens’ feeling of being represented” by the national parliament and their representatives. The authors examine this subject in two ways. The first explanatory approach emphasizes the relevance of substantive representation. In short, the more positively citizens perceive themselves to be represented concerning their values, issue preferences or their concerns as a member of a social group, the more positively they will evaluate the institutions and actors of the representational process. The second approach focuses on the behavior of representatives. It predicts representational judgments based on perceptions of MPs’ behavior. The results show that both explanatory approaches are relevant in explaining citizens’ representational judgments, but also suggest that perceptions of substantive representation are slightly more important than perceptions of MPs’ behavior.


  1. Armingeon, Klaus, and Kai Guthmann. 2014. Democracy in Crisis? The Declining Support for National Democracy in European Countries, 2007–2011. European Journal of Political Research 53: 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastedo, Heather, and Elisabeth Gidengil. 2014. Perceptions and Performance: How Do MPs Shape Up? Canadian Parliamentary Review 37: 25–30.Google Scholar
  3. Bengtsson, Åsa, and Hanna Wass. 2010. Styles of Political Representation: What Do Voters Expect? Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 20: 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boy, Daniel, and Nonna Mayer. 1997. L’électeur a ses raisons. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  5. Carman, Christopher J. 2007. Assessing Preferences for Political Representation in the US. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 17: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Converse, Philip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In Ideology and Discontent, ed. David E. Apter, 206–261. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. Costa, Olivier, and Eric Kerrouche. 2007. Qui Sont Les Députés Français: Enquête Sur Les élites Inconnues. Paris: Presses de la fondation nationale des sciences politiques.Google Scholar
  8. Costa, Olivier, Pierre Lefébure, Olivier Rozenberg, Tinette Schnatterer, and Eric Kerrouche. 2012. Far Away, So Close: Parliament and Citizens in France. The Journal of Legislative Studies 18: 294–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dageförde, Mirjam. 2013. Weit entfernt vom „idealen Abgeordneten?“ Zu Normen und Praxis parlamentarischer Repräsentation aus Sicht der Bürger. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 44: 522–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahl, Robert E. 1971. Polyarchy. Participation and Opposition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dalton, Russell J. 2017. Party Representation Across Multiple Issue-Dimensions. Party Politics 23: 609–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dolezal, Martin, and Wolfgang C. Müller. 2001. Die Wahlkreisarbeit. In Die österreichischen Abgeordneten. Individuelle Präferenzen und Politisches Verhalten, ed. Wolfgang C. Müller, Marcelo Jenny, Barbara Steininger, Martin Dolezal, Wilfried Philipp, and Sabine Preisl-Westphal, 98–182. Vienna: WUV Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
  13. Dovi, Suzanne Lynn. 2007. The Good Representative. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publication.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dudzinska, Agnieszka, Corentin Poyet, Olivier Costa, and Bernhard Wessels. 2014. Representational Roles. In Representing the People. A Survey Among Members of Statewide and Substate Parliaments, ed. Kris Deschouwer and Sam Depauw, 19–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Easton, David. 1975. A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political Support. British Journal of Political Science 5: 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elgie, Robert. 2013. A ‘New’ French Parliament? Changes and continuities. In Developments in French Politics 5, ed. Alistair Cole, Sophie Meunier, and Vincent Tiberj. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  17. Enns, Peter K., and Christopher Wlezien. 2011. Who Gets Represented? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  18. Eulau, Heinz, and Paul D. Karps. 1977. The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly 2: 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fenno, Richard. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  21. Ferrin, Monica. 2016. An Empirical Assessment of Satisfaction with Democracy. In How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy, ed. Monica Ferrin and Hanspeter Kriesi, 283–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gabriel, Oscar W., and Katja Neller. 2010. Bürger und Politik in Deutschland. In Deutschland, Österreich und die Schweiz im neuen Europa. Bürger und Politik, ed. Oscar W. Gabriel and Fritz Plasser, 57–146. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gabriel, Oscar W., and Lisa Schöllhammer. 2009. Warum die Deutschen ihren Abgeordneten nicht mehr vertrauen als dem Bundestag. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 40: 414–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grunberg, Gérard, Nonna Mayer, and Paul Sniderman. 2002. La démocratie à l’épreuve. Une nouvelle approche de l’opinion des Français. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  25. Hibbing, John R., and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 1995. Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes Toward American Political Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holmberg, Sören. 2014. Feeling Policy Represented. In Elections and Democracy: Representation and Accountability, ed. Jacques Thomassen, 112–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 2000. Politicians Don’t Pander. Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kerrouche, Eric. 2009. Usages et usagers de la permanence du député. Revue française de science politique 59: 429–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2010. Restructuration of Partisan Politics and the Emergence of a New Cleavage Based on Values. West European Politics 33: 673–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Stein Rokkan. 1967. Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction. In Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-national Perspectives, ed. Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan, 1–64. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’. The Journal of Politics 61: 628–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Miller, Warren E., and Donald E. Stokes. 1963. Constituency Influence in Congress. The American Political Science Review 57: 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parker, Glenn, and Roger H. Davidson. 1979. Why Do Americans Love Their Congressmen So Much More Than Their Congress? Legislative Studies Quarterly 4: 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Patterson, Samuel C., Robert G. Boynton, and Ronald D. Hedlund. 1969. Perceptions and Expectations of the Legislature and Support for It. American Journal of Sociology 75: 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pitkin, Hanna F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  37. Powell, Bingham. 2009. The Ideological Congruence Controversy: The Impact of Alternative Measures, Data, and Time Periods on the Effects of Election Rules. Comparative Political Studies 42: 1475–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rohrschneider, Robert. 2005. Institutional Quality and Perceptions of Representation in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Comparative Political Studies 38: 850–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2015. Le bon gouvernement. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  40. Schüttemeyer, Suzanne S. 1986. Bundestag und Bürger im Spiegel der Demoskopie. Eine Sekundäranalyse zur Parlamentarismusperzeption in der Bundesrepublik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sniderman, Paul M., Richard A. Brody, and Philip E. Tetlock. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Strøm, Kaare. 1997. Rules, Reasons and Routines: Legislative Roles in Parliamentary Democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies 3: 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thomassen, Jacques, and Rudy B. Andeweg. 2004. Beyond Collective Representation: Individual Members of Parliament and Interest Representation in the Netherlands. The Journal of Legislative Studies 10: 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vivyan, Nick, and Markus Wagner. 2012. Do Voters Reward Rebellion? The Electoral Accountability of MPs in Britain: Do Voters Reward Rebellion? European Journal of Political Research 51: 235–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Warren, Mark, and Dario Castiglione. 2004. The Transformation of Democratic Representation. Democracy & Society 2: 5.Google Scholar
  46. Weingast, Barry R., Kenneth A. Shepsle, and Christopher Johnsen. 1981. The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics. Journal of Political Economy 89: 642–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Whitefield, Stephen. 2006. Mind the Representation Gap: Explaining Differences in Public Views of Representation in Postcommunist Democracies. Comparative Political Studies 39: 733–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zmerli, Sonja, and Tom W.G. van der Meer. 2017. Handbook on Political Trust. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mirjam Dageförde
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eric Kerrouche
    • 3
  • Corentin Poyet
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Political and Social SciencesEuropean University InstituteFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Centre d’études européennesSciences-PoParisFrance
  3. 3.CNRS, Centre Emile Durkheim, Sciences-Po BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  4. 4.School of Management, University of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations