Abstract
Does it pay off to rely on a distinction between confidence in representative and regulative institutions and authorities rather than conflating citizens’ confidence in different institutions and authorities into one single, one-dimensional measure? In the concluding chapter of his book, Schnaudt summarizes the main results of his comprehensive empirical analysis, elaborates on the further implications of his findings and delineates promising perspectives and avenues for future research on political confidence. The author’s main conclusion states that, in comparison to the one-dimensional conception of political confidence as routinely used in most of previous research, the distinction between confidence in representative and regulative institutions and authorities allows for empirically more encompassing and better informed conclusions about the relevance and impact of political confidence in contemporary European democracies. Not only do European citizens distinguish between confidence in representative and regulative institutions and authorities, both types of political confidence also emanate from different sources and origins and imply different consequences. Schnaudt concludes his book with several recommendations for future research on political confidence, paying particular attention to questions of theory development and refinement, measurement, causality, as well as the broader implications and consequences of political confidence for the viability of democracy.
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
References
Allen, N., & Birch, S. (2014). Process preferences and British public opinion: Citizens’ judgements about government in an era of anti-politics. Political Studies, 63, 390–411. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9248.12110/abstract
Benesh, S. C. (2006). Understanding public confidence in American courts. The Journal of Politics, 68(3), 697–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00455.x
Denters, B., Gabriel, O. W., & Torcal, M. (2007). Political confidence in representative democracies. In J. W. van Deth, J. R. Montero, & A. Westholm (Eds.), Citizenship and involvement in European democracies: A comparative analysis (pp. 66–87). London: Routledge.
Esaiasson, P. (2010). Will citizens take no for an answer? What government officials can do to enhance decision acceptance. European Political Science Review, 2(3), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000238
Grimes, M. (2006). Organizing consent: The role of procedural fairness in political trust and compliance. European Journal of Political Research, 45(2), 285–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00299.x
Grimes, M. (2008). Consent, political trust and compliance: Rejoinder to Kaina’s remarks on ’organizing consent. European Journal of Political Research, 47(4), 522–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2008.00774.x
Hansen, S. W. (2012). Polity size and local political trust: A quasi-experiment using municipal mergers in Denmark. Scandinavian Political Studies, 36(1), 43–66. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2012.00296.x/abstract
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (1995). Congress as public enemy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2001). Process preferences and American politics: What the people want government to be. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 145–153. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3117634
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hooghe, M. (2011). Why there is basically only one form of political trust. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 13(2), 269–275. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2010.00447.x/abstract
Kaase, M., & Newton, K. (1995). Beliefs in government. Beliefs in government series volume five. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keele, L. (2005). The authorities really do matter: Party control and trust in government. The Journal of Politics, 67(3), 873–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00343.x
Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 475–507. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.475
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Linde, J. (2012). Why feed the hand that bites you? Perceptions of procedural fairness and system support in post-communist democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 51(3), 410–434. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02005.x/abstract
Ramirez, M. D. (2008). Procedural perceptions and support for the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Psychology, 29(5), 675–698. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00660.x/abstract
Roller, E. (2005). The performance of democracies: Political institutions and public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rothstein, B., & Stolle, D. (2003). Social capital, impartiality and the welfare state: An institutional approach. In M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in comparative perspective (pp. 191–209). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Rothstein, B., & Stolle, D. (2008). Political institutions and generalized trust. In D. Castiglione, J. W. van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 273–302). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165–190. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00391.x/abstract
Stolle, D., & Hooghe, M. (2003). Conclusion: The sources of social capital reconsidered. In M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating social capital. Civil society and institutions in comparative perspective (pp. 231–248). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2011). Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tyler, T. R., Casper, J. D., & Fisher, B. (1989). Maintaining allegiance toward political authorities: The role of prior attitudes and the use of fair procedures. American Journal of Political Science, 33(3), 629–652. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111066
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ulbig, S. G. (2002). Policies, procedures, and people: Sources of support for government? Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 789–809. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6237.00115/abstract
van Craen, M., & Skogan, W. G. (2014). Trust in the Belgian police: The importance of responsiveness. European Journal of Criminology. http://euc.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/14/1477370814543156
Van de Walle, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2003). Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(8–9), 891–913. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1081/PAD-120019352
van der Meer, T., & Zmerli, S. (2017). The deeply rooted concern with political trust. In S. Zmerli & T. van der Meer (Eds.), Handbook on political trust (pp. 1–15). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
van Deth, J. W. (2017). Compliance, trust, and norms of citizenship. In S. Zmerli & T. van der Meer (Eds.), Handbook on political trust (pp. 212–227). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schnaudt, C. (2019). Conclusions: The Distinctiveness and Relevance of Different Types of Political Confidence. In: Political Confidence and Democracy in Europe. Contributions to Political Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89432-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89432-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89431-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89432-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)