Abstract
This chapter examines satisfaction with democracy. Despite providing one of the longest running time series of any indicator of popular support, its use has not been without controversy. As argued in the first part of the chapter, however, it functions as a summary indicator of support, but one that is sensitive to the institutional context in which it is used. The chapter then tests theoretical propositions, examining the factors which drive satisfaction with democracy at the individual-level. Multivariate models examine the statistical and substantive importance of its theoretical correlates and supplementary analyses probe into the ways in which some of these factors interact or have changed over time. The central finding clear: support is multidimensional. It is shaped by a conflation of theoretical factors, which vary between the east and west of the country.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The trends feature regularly in analyses of the Pew Research Center, with one recent report linking levels of satisfaction with democracy (p. 13) to support for non-democratic alternatives, p. 8. See, Richard Wike, Katie Simmons, Bruce Stokes and Rhonda Stewart, ‘Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy’ Pew Research Center, October 2017. In addition, as satisfaction with democracy has been a regular item included in the Eurobarometer series, it has featured in reports for the European Commission, see, for example, Eurobarometer 65: Public Opinion in the European Union, pp. 29–36: ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/eb/eb65/eb65_first_en.pdf.
- 2.
The item featured in the Eurobarometer series, the World Values Survey (1981), and the ALLBUS survey series (since 1988).
- 3.
The presence of the question in the Afrobarometer is somewhat curious, particularly since it is asked in countries which are not democracies. The answers of the plurality of respondents in Zimbabwe in 2002/2003, for example, who offered the response ‘fairly satisfied’ raises questions about whether or not they were evaluating an idealised form of governance—or from what criteria they believed their existing arrangements to be democratic. See, www.afrobarometer.org.
- 4.
Jonas Linde and Joakim Ekman, ‘Satisfaction with Democracy: A Note of a Frequently Used Indicator in Comparative Politics’, European Journal of Political Research, 42, pp. 391–408.
- 5.
Canache, Damarys, Jeffery J Mondak and Mitchell A Seligson (2001) Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(4): 506–528.
- 6.
‘On the whole, are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied or not at all satisfied with the way democracy works in …?’
- 7.
See, for example, John R. Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 32–33.
- 8.
‘On the whole are you very satisfied, rather satisfied, or not at all satisfied with the way democracy is developing in your country?’ (emphasis added).
- 9.
In particular, by focussing on the development of democracy, respondents’ answers may have been coloured by experiences of the previous regime, the disruption during their collapse and the success or difficulties with which new governing arrangements were established.
- 10.
Richard Rose and Bernhard Weßels ‘The Absolute and Instrumental Legitimacy of Democracy’ Studies in Public Policy, N. 524 (Glasgow: University of Strathclyde, 2016).
- 11.
For example, when asked in the Afrobarometer in 2002/2003 a plurality of Zimbabweans responded ‘fairly satisfied’. Although it is not inconceivable that respondents were appraising the existing governing arrangements, the context should have prompted hesitancy and suspicion from those answering, and the backdrop of authoritarianism, electoral fraud and egregious violations of human rights invites caution about the validity and comparability of the answers.
- 12.
The Politbaromoter, however, uses a slightly different question formulation, which refers to democracy ‘in general’: Was würden Sie allgemein zur Demokratie in Deutschland sagen? Sind Sie damit eher zufrieden oder eher unzufrieden?
- 13.
See, for example, the European Social Survey, which asks ‘And on the whole, how satisfied are with the way democracy works in [country]’? 0 means extremely dissatisfied and 10 means extremely satisfied. The question also includes a footnote indicating that what is meant is the democratic system in practice, as opposed to how democracy ‘ought’ to work.
- 14.
Martha Lagos, ‘World Opinion: Support for and Satisfaction with Democracy’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15/4 (2003), pp. 471–487.
- 15.
Manfred Kuechler, ‘The Dynamics of Mass Political Support in Western Europe: Methodological Problems and Preliminary Findings’ in Reif, K. Inglehart, R. (eds.) Eurobarometer: The Dynamics of European Public Opinion, Essays in Honor of Jacques-Rene Rabier. New York, NY: St. Martin’s (1991), p. 279.
- 16.
Christopher Anderson and Christine Guillory, ‘Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems’, American Political Science Review, 91/1 (Mar. 1997), p. 70.
- 17.
Harold D. Clarke and Allan Kornberg, Citizens and Community: Political Support in a Representative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1992), pp. 67–68.
- 18.
Christopher J. Anderson, Andre Blais, Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan and Ola Listhaug, Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2005), pp. 35–37.
- 19.
Russell Dalton, Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2004), p. 24.
- 20.
Filip Kostelka and Andre Blais, ‘The Chicken and Egg Question: Satisfaction with Democracy and Voter Turnout’, Political Science and Politics, 51/2 (2018), pp. 370–375.
- 21.
Richard Rose ‘Survey Measures of Democracy’ Studies in Public Policy, No. 294 (Glasgow: University of Strathclyde, 1997), p. 10.
- 22.
Sara B. Hobolt, ‘Citizen Satisfaction with Democracy in the European Union’. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50/1, pp. 88–105.
- 23.
Pablo Christmann and Mariano Torcal, ‘The Political and Economic Causes of Satisfaction with Democracy in Spain—A Twofold Panel Study’, West European Politics, 40/6, pp. 1241–1266.
- 24.
Pippa Norris, Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2011), pp. 44–45.
- 25.
Pippa Norris, ‘Introduction: The Growth of Critical Citizens’, in Norris, P. (ed.) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1999), p. 11.
- 26.
Anderson, Christopher J (2002) Good questions, dubious inferences, and bad solutions: Some further thoughts on satisfaction with democracy. Research paper 116, Binghamton Center for Democratic Performance, State University of New York.
- 27.
Fred Cutler, Andrea Nuesser and Ben Nyblade, ‘Evaluating the Quality of Democracy with Individual Level Models of Satisfaction: Or, A Complete Model of Satisfaction with Democracy’. Paper Presented at the ECPR General Conference, Bordeaux, 4–7 September 2013.
- 28.
Christmann and Torcal, p. 1252.
- 29.
Ross Campbell, ‘Winners, Losers, and the Grand Coalition: Political Satisfaction in the Federal Republic of Germany’. International Political Science Review, 36/2 (2015), pp. 168–184.
- 30.
Monica Ferrin, ‘An Empirical Assessment of Satisfaction with Democracy’ in Ferrin, M., and Kriesi, H. How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2016).
- 31.
Calculated using the effects package in R. See, John Fox and Sanford Weisberg, An R Companion to Applied Regression: 2nd Edition. London: Sage (2011).
- 32.
Jeff W. Johnson, ‘A Heuristic for Estimating the Relative Weight of Predictor Variables in Multiple Regression’, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35/1 (2000), pp. 1–19.
- 33.
There are good reasons for this scepticism as research has shown that standardised Beta coefficients may: (1) exaggerate the relative weight of predictor variables most correlated with the dependent variable; (2) diminish the relative weight of other variables in the model; (3) reverse the signs of some variables; and (4) inflate the weights of variables if the sample size is small.
- 34.
The particular method used is LMG: the R2 averaged over orderings among regressors, R.H. Lindeman, P.F. Merenda and R.Z. Gold, R.Z. (1980) Introduction to Bivariate and Multivariate Analysis, Glenview IL (1980). Scott, Foresman.
- 35.
These are calculated by the relaimpo package in R. See, Ulrike Grömping, ‘Relative Importance for Linear Regression in R: The Package relaimpo’, Journal of Statistical Software, 17/1 (2006), pp. 1–27.
- 36.
These have been graphed using the sjPlot package in R.
- 37.
The reason for this is the infrequent measurement of socialist values item in surveys in which indicators of popular support featured. Having established that socialist values is an important correlate of satisfaction with democracy, omitting it from analysis changes the findings.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Campbell, R. (2019). Evaluative Support and the Functioning of Democracy in Germany. In: Popular Support for Democracy in Unified Germany. New Perspectives in German Political Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03792-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03792-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03791-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03792-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)