The analysis of the relationship between legitimacy and reform is complex. This is because 'political reform' consists of an array of institutional reforms.The general question guiding this project is whether the introduction of reform helps boost the legitimacy of the democratic system: does the impact of reform on legitimacy vary with the type of reform, or with the process of reform. To answer these questions, this study also seeks to establish how many reforms have taken place, what types of reform have been introduced and under what circumstances these reforms occur.NWO project number 017.004.016The Institutions of Politics; Design, Workings, and implications ( do not use, ended 1-1-2020

Ziemann, K.

Leiden University Scholary Publications

 Cover Page         The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/28768 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation.  Author: Ziemann, Kavita Title: Democratic reforms and legitimacy in established Western democracies Issue Date: 2014-09-17 Democratic Reforms and Legitimacy in EstablishedWestern DemocraciesKavita ZiemannTypeset by LATEX, printed by Ipskamp Drukkers.Copyright © 2014 Kavita Heijstek–ZiemannDemocratic Reforms and Legitimacy in EstablishedWestern DemocraciesProefschriftter verkrijging vande graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden,op gezag vanRector Magnificus prof.mr. C.J.J.M. Stolkervolgens besluit van het College voor Promotieste verdedigen opwoensdag 17 september 2014klokke 16:15 uurdoorKavita Ziemanngeboren te Holon (Israël)in 1980PromotiecommissiePromotor : Prof. dr. R.B. AndewegOverige Leden : Prof. dr. I.C. van BiezenProf. dr. M. Flinders (University of Sheffield)Prof. dr. F. Hendriks (University of Tilburg)Prof. dr. G.A. IrwinProf. dr. R.A. KooleProf. dr. M.H. Leyenaar (Radboud University Nijmegen)This thesis was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research(NWO) under project number 017.004.016.ContentsList of Illustrations xiFigures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiTables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii1 Introduction 11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3 Time Series Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.4 Large N Case Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.4.1 Case Studies: Process of Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.4.2 Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.5 Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.5.1 Reforms as Independent and Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . 81.5.2 Categorizing Reforms on Two Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.6 Empirical Approach to Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.6.1 Satisfaction with Democracy and Trust in Institutions . . . . . . . 91.6.2 Mass -Level Cultural Dispositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.7 Plan of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Two Views of Legitimacy — A Neoinstitutionalist Answer 132.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.2 The Normative Approach to Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.2.1 Variables of Normative Legitimacy: Constitutional Provisionsand Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152.3 The Empirical Approach to Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16vi CONTENTS2.3.1 Variables of Empirical Legitimacy: Mass and Individual LevelAttitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.4 Reconciling Two Views of Legitimacy: A Neo-institutionalist Approach 192.4.1 Input Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.4.2 Throughput Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.4.3 Output Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.5 Legitimacy and Reform in the Following Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 How Much Reform in Advanced Industrialized Democracies 273.1 Chains of Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273.2 Shifts in the Chains of Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283.2.1 Shifts Within the Chain of Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283.2.2 Shifts to Direct Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293.2.3 Shifts to Non-Majoritarian Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293.3 The Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303.3.1 Coding Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313.3.2 Reform Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343.3.3 Reform Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343.3.4 Country Reports and Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353.3.5 Coding Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363.3.6 Expert Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383.4 Patterns of Institutional Change in the Last Two Decades . . . . . . . . . 393.4.1 Shifts Within Delegate Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403.4.2 Shifts towards Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413.4.3 Shifts towards Non-Majoritarian Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . 423.4.4 Reforms Across-Countries and Over-Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423.5 Reform Discussions and Reform Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474 Under what Circumstances do Reforms Occur ? 494.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494.2 Illustrations from Israel and New -Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514.2.1 Shifting Power Relations: Dealignment and Realignment . . . . 524.2.2 Veto Players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534.2.3 Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574.2.4 Nearness of Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604.3 Hypotheses, Data and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624.3.1 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62CONTENTS vii4.3.2 Binary Time-Series Cross-Sectional Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 644.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 Can Mass-Level Cultural Dispositions Explain Direction in Reform? 715.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.2 Reforms and Mass- Cultural Dispositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725.2.1 Aggregative and Indirect: Pendulum Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . 735.2.2 Integrative and Indirect: Consensus Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . 765.2.3 Aggregative and Direct: Voter Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805.2.4 Integrative and Direct: Participatory Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . 825.3 Mass-Level Foundations of Different Models of Democracy . . . . . . . 845.4 Can Mass-Level Cultural Dispositions Explain Type of Reform? . . . . . 875.5 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885.5.1 Four Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946 The Impact of Reforms on Satisfaction with Democracy and Trust in Institu-tions 976.1 Introduction: Linking Reforms to Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976.2 Increase in Non-Majoritarian Institutions and their Link to Legitimacy 976.2.1 Non-Majoritarian Institutions Against the Tyranny of the Majority 996.2.2 Non-Majoritarian Institutions and Procedural Legitimacy . . . . 996.2.3 Citizen prefrences and expert institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006.2.4 Expert Institutions and Legitimacy: Some Expectations . . . . . 1016.3 Increase in Participation Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026.3.1 Preference Among Citizens for Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046.3.2 Linking Participation to Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046.3.3 Participation and Legitimacy: Some Expectations . . . . . . . . . 1076.4 Hypotheses, Data and Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086.5 Hypotheses based on the Typology of Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096.5.1 The Variables and their direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106.5.2 Time Series Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1146.6 The Impact of Reforms on Satisfaction with Democracy and Trust inInstitutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1156.7 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1256.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128viii CONTENTS7 Process of Reform: Bottom-Up Reforms and Legitimacy 1317.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1317.2 Direct Democratic Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1327.3 Case Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1347.4 United Kingdom: AV Referendum May 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1357.4.1 Direct Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1367.4.2 Knowledge and the Exchange of Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . 1367.5 New Zealand: Kicking the Tyres on MMP November 2011 . . . . . . . . 1387.5.1 Direct Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1387.5.2 Educational Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1407.5.3 The Pro and Contra Campaigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1407.5.4 Politicians Hold their Tongue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1417.5.5 Parallels and Differences with the 1990s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1427.6 The Netherlands: Burgerforum 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1447.6.1 Inclusion and Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1457.6.2 Learning, Consultation and Deliberation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1457.6.3 Direct Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1467.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1478 Conclusion: Democratic Drift Across Industrialized Democracies 1518.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1518.2 Reforms Across 21 Democracies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1548.3 Democratic Drift Across Industrialized Democracies? . . . . . . . . . . . 1558.3.1 Constitutional Morality and Anomie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1558.3.2 Gap between Elite Reform Choices and Societal Needs . . . . . 1578.3.3 Gap between Rhetorical Practices and Governing Practices . . . 1588.4 Inability to Rebuild Satisfaction and Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1598.5 Implications for Theory: Do Institutions Matter? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1608.6 Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1618.7 Implications for Reformers: The Impact of Anomie on Legitimacy . . . 162A Inventories of Reform, Discussion and Failures 165A.1 Inventory of Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165A.2 Inventory of Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185A.3 Inventory of Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195CONTENTS ixB Under what circumstances do Major Reforms Occur? 199B.1 Operationalization of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199B.2 Diagnostics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201B.3 Occurrence of Reform per Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203B.4 List of Interviews Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207B.5 List of Interviews New-Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208C The Impact of Reforms on Satisfaction with Democracy and Trust in Institu-tions 209C.1 The Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209C.2 Diagnostics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216Bibliography 219Author Index 239Samenvatting 245Curriculum Vitae 249Acknowledgments 251List of IllustrationsFigures2.1 Multidimensional Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212.2 Indirect—Direct Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232.3 Typology of Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232.4 Occurrence of Institutional Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242.5 Linking Mass-Level Dispositions to Type of Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . 242.6 Impact of Reforms on Empirical Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.7 Impact of the Process of Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.1 Shifts Within Delegate Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403.2 Shifts Within Delegate Institutions Per Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403.3 Shifts Within Delegate Institutions Per Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413.4 Shifts from Delegates to Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413.5 Shifts from Delegates to Citizens Per Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423.6 Shifts from Delegates to Citizens Per Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423.7 Shifts from Delegates to Non-Majoritarian Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . 433.8 Shifts from Delegates to Non-Majoritarian Institutions Per Year . . . . . 433.9 Shifts from Delegates to Non-Majoritarian Institutions Per Year . . . . . 443.10 Reforms Per Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453.11 Reforms Per Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453.12 Number of Discussions Per Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463.13 Number of Discussions Per Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463.14 Number of Failures Per Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473.15 Number of Failures Per Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47xii5.1 Indirect—Direct dimension and Aggregative—Integrative dimension . 857.1 New-Zealand’s two-stage referendum 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139C.1 Satisfaction with Democracy Over Time per Country . . . . . . . . . . . . 210C.2 Trust in Parliament Over Time per Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212C.3 Trust in Government Over Time per Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213Tables4.1 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654.2 Model 1: Veto Players and Dependent Variable Occurrence of Reforms 674.3 Model 2: Situational Variables and Dependent Variable Occurrence ofReforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684.4 Full Model: Logistic Regression of Dependent Variable Occurrence ofReforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695.1 Hendriks’ Models of Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735.2 Types of Reforms Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845.3 Mass Level Foundations of Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865.4 Changes in Mass-Level Dispositions 1980 and 1990; sources: Grendstad1999 and EVS 1990 (N=11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895.5 Cultural Groups and Mean Confidence in Parliament (source: EVS 1990) 956.1 Hypotheses and Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1136.2 The Impact of Reforms on Citizen Attitudes Model 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1176.3 The Impact of Reforms on Citizen Attitudes Model 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1186.4 The Impact of Reforms on Citizen Attitudes Model 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196.5 The Impact of Reforms on Citizen Attitudes Model 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1216.6 The Impact of Reforms on Citizen Attitudes Model 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1226.7 The Impact of Reforms on Citizen Attitudes; Full Model . . . . . . . . . 1247.1 Three Types of National Bottom-Up Electoral System Reform Processes 1347.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1498.1 Results per Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1528.1 Results per Research Question (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1538.1 Results per Research Question (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Democratic reforms and legitimacy in established Western democracies

https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2964623/download

Democratic reforms and legitimacy in established Western democracies

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Leiden University Scholary Publications