The Opinion-Policy Nexus in Europe and the Role of Political Institutions

A strong link between citizen preferences and public policy is one of the key goals and criteria of democratic governance. Yet, our knowledge about the extent to which public policies on specific issues are in line with citizen preferences in Europe is limited. This article reports on the first study of the link between public opinion and public policy that covers a large and diverse sample of concrete public policy issues in 31 European democracies. The findings demonstrate a strong positive relationship and a substantial degree of congruence between public opinion and the state of public policy. Also examined is whether political institutions, including electoral systems and the horizontal and vertical division of powers, influence the opinion‐policy link. The evidence for such effects is very limited, which suggests that the same institutions might affect policy representation in countervailing ways through different mechanisms

The mobilising effect of political choice

Political choice is central to citizens’ participation in elections. Nonetheless, little is known about the individual-level mechanisms that link political choice and turnout. It is argued in this article that turnout decisions are shaped not only by the differences between the parties (party polarisation), but also by the closeness of parties to citizens’ own ideological position (congruence), and that congruence matters more in polarised systems where more is at stake. Analysing cross-national survey data from 80 elections, it is found that both polarisation and congruence have a mobilising effect, but that polarisation moderates the effect of congruence on turnout. To further explore the causal effect of political choice, the arrival of a new radical right-wing party in Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), is leveraged and the findings show that the presence of the AfD had a mobilising effect, especially for citizens with congruent views

Entering the men's domain? Gender and portfolio allocation in European governments

While all government portfolios used to be the purview of men exclusively, more and more women are selected to sit around the cabinet table. But under which circumstances do women get appointed to different ministerial portfolios? This article, proposes a theoretical framework to consider how party leaders’ attitudes and motivations influence the allocation of portfolios to male and female ministers. These propositions are tested empirically by bringing together data on 7,005 cabinet appointments across 29 European countries from the late 1980s until 2014. Considering the key partisan dynamics of the ministerial selection process, it is found that women are significantly less likely to be appointed to the ‘core’ offices of state, and ‘masculine’ and ‘neutral’ policy areas. However, these gender differences are moderated by the ideology of the party that allocates them. Women are more likely to be appointed to ‘masculine’ portfolios when a party's voters have more progressive gender attitudes. This theoretical framework and analysis enhances our understanding of women's access to the government, which has important implications for how ministers are selected, as well as how women are represented in the most powerful policy?making positions in Europe

Fragments of equality in representative politics

Deploying a broadly interpretive approach, the article explores the extent to which, and the ways in which, equality is enacted in non-elective as well as elective representation. It argues that the fleeting and fragmentary equalities evident in non-elective representation are democratically significant, and that examining them can enhance understanding of the democratic promise and limits of different modes of representation

Health inequalities, fundamental causes and power:Towards the practice of good theory

Reducing health inequalities remains a challenge for policy makers across the world. Beginning from Lewin’s famous dictum that “there is nothing as practical as a good theory”, this paper begins from an appreciative discussion of ‘fundamental cause theory’, emphasizing the elegance of its theoretical encapsulation of the challenge, the relevance of its critical focus for action, and its potential to support the practical mobilisation of knowledge in generating change. Moreover, it is argued that recent developments in the theory, provide an opportunity for further theoretical development focused more clearly on the concept of power (Dickie et al. 2015). A critical focus on power as the essential element in maintaining, increasing or reducing social and economic inequalities – including health inequalities – can both enhance the coherence of the theory, and also enhance the capacity to challenge the roots of health inequalities at different levels and scales. This paper provides an initial contribution by proposing a framework to help to identify the most important sources, forms and positions of power, as well as the social spaces in which they operate. Subsequent work could usefully test, elaborate and adapt this framework, or indeed ultimately replace it with something better, to help focus actions to reduce inequalities

Processos de democracia direta: sim ou não? Os argumentos clássicos à luz da teoria e da prática

Regularmente surgem controvérsias sobre os processos de democracia direta, dos quais os mecanismos mais frequentes são a iniciativa popular, o plebiscito e o referendo. Por um lado, há autores que defendem a posição de que essas instituições tornam o jogo político mais lento, caro, confuso e ilegítimo; outros defendem a posição contrária e argumentam que processos de democracia direta são fundamentais para os cidadãos e a qualidade da democracia. O presente estudo analisa esse tema em torno de sete questões, baseadas em considerações teóricas e pesquisas empíricas: 1. A questão entre o minimalismo e o maximalismo democrático; 2. A concorrência entre maioria e minoria; 3. A concorrência entre as instituições representativas e os processos de democracia direta; 4. A questão da competência dos cidadãos; 5. A questão dos efeitos colaterais dos processos de democracia direta; 6. A questão do tamanho do eleitorado; 7. A questão dos custos dos processos de democracia direta. As sete questões são analisadas a partir de uma revisão bibliográfica que considera tanto fontes nacionais como internacionais. O estudo mostra que os processos de democracia direta podem ser um complemento para as instituições representativas em um sistema democrático. O bom desempenho dos plebiscitos, referendos e iniciativas populares depende tanto da regulamentação destes como também do desempenho das outras instituições políticas e da situação socioeconômica de um país. O estudo permite ampliar e aprofundar o debate sobre processos de democracia direta no Brasil