Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Malaise in Representation in Latin American Countries pp 281–302Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Mass–Elite Congruence and Representation in Argentina

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

In representative democracies, policymakers should reflect the policy preferences of citizens (Manin 1997; Pitkin 1967). Scholars have long assumed that citizens elect representatives whose platforms are closest to their own preferences (e.g., Downs 1957). And models of accountability assume that elites have incentives not to stray too far from the preferences of sanctioning voters (e.g., Ferejohn 1986). But how close are politicians’ preferences to those of their constituents? Do they indeed reflect an aggregation of citizens’ preferences, or do they prioritize some citizens over others?

For their comments and advice, we thank Larry Bartels, Daniel Buquet, Nick Carnes, Lucía Selios, Gabriel Vommaro, and participants at the workshop “Making Democracy Count” at the Universidad Diego Portales. All translations are our own.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Achen, Christopher H. 1977. Measuring representation: Perils of the correlation coefficient. American Journal of Political Science 21(4): 805–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1978. Measuring representation. American Journal of Political Science 22(3): 475–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkerman, Agnes, Cas Mudde, and Andrej Zaslove. 2014. How populist are the people? Measuring populist attitudes in voters. Comparative Political Studies 47(9): 1324–1353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andeweg, Rudy B. 2011. Approaching perfect policy congruence: Measurement, development, and relevance for political representation. In How democracy works: Political representation and policy congruence in modern societies, ed. Martin Rosema, Bas Denters, and Kees Aarts. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronow, Peter M., Cyrus Samii, and Valentina A. Assenova. 2015. Cluster-robust variance estimation for dyadic data. Political Analysis 23(4): 564–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatti, Yosef, and Robert S. Erikson. 2011. How poorly are the poor represented in the U.S. Senate? In Who gets represented, ed. Peter K. Enns, and Christopher Wlezien, 223–246. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blais, André, and Marc André Bodet. 2006. Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policy makes? Comparative Political Studies 39(10): 1243–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boas, Taylor C., and Amy Erica Smith. 2014. Looks like me, thinks like me? Descriptive representation and opinion congruence in Brazil. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canes-Wrone, Brandice. 2015. From mass preferences to policy. Annual Review of Political Science 18: 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlin, Ryan E., Matthew M. Singer, and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister (ed). 2015. The Latin American voter: Pursuing representation and accountability in challenging contexts. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnes, Nicholas, and Noam Lupu. 2015. Rethinking the comparative perspective on class and representation: Evidence from Latin America. American Journal of Political Science 59(1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conniff, Michael L. (ed). 1982. Latin American populism in comparative perspective. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, Russell J. 1985. Political parties and political representation: Party supporters and party elites in nine nations. Comparative Political Studies 18(3): 267–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz-Cayeros, Alberto. 2006. Federalism, fiscal authority, and centralization in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. Boston: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, David. 2011. The legitimacy of political institutions: Explaining contemporary populism in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies 44(11): 1447–1473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, Robert S., Pablo M. Pinto, and Kelly T. Rader. 2014. Dyadic analysis in international relations: A cautionary tale. Political Analysis 22: 457–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezrow, Lawrence. 2007. The variance matters: How party systems represent the preferences of voters. Journal of Politics 69(1): 182–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezrow, Lawrence, Catherine De Vries, Marco Steenbergen, and Erica Edwards. 2011. Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: Do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters? Party Politics 17(3): 275–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferejohn, John. 1986. Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice 50(1): 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, Andrew, Aleks Jakulin, Maria Grazia Pittau, and Su. Yu-Sung. 2008. A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. The Annals of Applied Statistics 2(4): 1360–1383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilens, Martin. 2005. Inequality and democratic responsiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 69(5): 778–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Policy consequences of representational inequality. In Who gets represented, ed. Peter K. Enns, and Christopher Wlezien, 247–284. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golder, Matt, and Gabriella Lloyd. 2014. Re-evaluating the relationship between electoral rules and ideological congruence. European Journal of Political Research 53: 200–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golder, Matt, and Jacek Stramski. 2010. Ideological congruence and electoral institutions: Conceptualization and measurement. American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 90–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, Kirk. 2010. Venezuela’s chavismo and populism in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, John D., and G. Bingham Powell. 1994. Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics 46(3): 291–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, Gary, Christopher J.L. Murray, Joshua A. Salomon, and Ajay Tandon. 2004. Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review 98(1): 191–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, Herbert, Kirk Hawkins, Juan Pablo Luna, Guillermo Rosas, and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. 2010. Latin American party systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, Herbert, Zdenka Mansfeldova, Radoslaw Markowski, and Gábor Tóka. 1999. Post-communist part systems: Competition, representation, and inter-party cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Luna, Juan P., and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. 2005. Political representation in Latin America: A study of elite-mass congruence in nine countries. Comparative Political Studies 38(4): 388–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupu, Noam. 2010. Who votes for chavismo? Class voting in Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela. Latin American Research Review 45(1): 7–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Brand dilution and the breakdown of political parties in Latin America. World Politics 66(4): 561–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Party brands in crisis: Partisanship, brand dilution, and the breakdown of political parties in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupu, Noam, and Susan C. Stokes. 2009. The social bases of political parties in Argentina, 1912–2003. Latin American Research Review 44(1): 58–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manin, Bernard. 1997. The principles of representative government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart. 1859. On liberty. London: Longman, Roberts, and Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Arthur H., Vicki L. Hesli, and William M. Reisinger. 1995. Comparing citizen and elite belief systems in post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine. Public Opinion Quarterly 59(1): 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. Conceptions of democracy among mass and elite in post-Soviet societies. British Journal of Political Science 27(2): 157–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Arthur H., William M. Reisinger, and Vicki L. Hesli. 1998. Establishing representation in post-Soviet societies: Change in mass and elite attitudes toward democracy and the market, 1992–1995. Electoral Studies 17(3): 327–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Warren E., and Donald E. Stokes. 1963. Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review 57(1): 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez, Orlando J. 2015. The impact of crime on voter choice in Latin America. In The Latin American voter: Pursuing representation and accountability in challenging contexts, ed. Ryan E. Carlin, Matthew M. Singer, and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister, 324–345. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. Bingham Jr. 2006. Election laws and representative governments: Beyond votes and seats. British Journal of Political Science 36(2): 291–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative measures, data, and time periods on the effects of election rules. Comparative Political Studies 42(12): 1475–1497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Representation in context: Election laws and ideological congruence between citizens and governments. Perspectives on Politics 11(1): 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saiegh, Sebastián. 2015. Using joint scaling methods to study ideology and representation: Evidence from Latin America. Political Analysis 23: 363–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seligson, Mitchell A. 2007. The rise of populism and the left in Latin America. Journal of Democracy 18(3): 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siavelis, Peter. 2009. Elite-mass congruence, partidocracia and the quality of Chilean democracy. Journal of Politics in Latin America 1(3): 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, Susan C. 2001. Mandates and democracy: Neoliberalism by surprise in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, Susan C., Thad Dunning, Marcelo Nazareno, and Valeria Brusco. 2013. Brokers, voters, and clientelism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tagina, María Laura. 2012. Factores contextuales, predisposiciones de largo plazo y accountabilty electoral en Argentina en tiempos del Kirchnerismo. Política y Gobierno 19(2): 343–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wlezien, Christopher, and Stuart N. Soroka. 2011. Inequality in policy responsiveness? In Who gets represented, ed. Peter K. Enns, and Christopher Wlezien, 285–310. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zechmeister, Elizabeth. 2006. What’s left and who’s right? A Q-method study of individual and contextual influences on the meaning of ideological labels. Political Behavior 28(2): 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zechmeister, Elizabeth J., and Margarita Corral. 2013. Individual and contextual constraints on ideological labels in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies 46(6): 675–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

    Noam Lupu

  2. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Zach Warner

Authors
  1. Noam Lupu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zach Warner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile

    Alfredo Joignant

  2. Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile

    Mauricio Morales

  3. Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile

    Claudio Fuentes

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lupu, N., Warner, Z. (2017). Mass–Elite Congruence and Representation in Argentina. In: Joignant, A., Morales, M., Fuentes, C. (eds) Malaise in Representation in Latin American Countries. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59955-1_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation