Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
How much autonomy elected representatives should have in looking after the interests of their constituents is a central question of democratic theory. While much research has been conducted on the representational roles adopted by elected representatives, we currently lack an understanding of citizens’ preferences for contrasting models of representation, more specifically whether they believe representatives should primarily act as instructed delegates, closely following public opinion or rather as trustees, relying on their own convictions and judgement. As a result, we know relatively little about how congruent citizens’ and politicians’ representational preferences are, whether some subgroups of citizens and politicians are more congruent with each other than others and whether citizens’ and politicians’ representational preferences are driven by the same determinants. Using data from 13 countries, we assess the level of congruence between voters’ and MPs’ preferences in representational style. In all countries, citizens favouring delegate‐style MPs are poorly represented as the vast majority of representatives display a moderate to strong preference for trusteeship. Analysing subgroups of politicians and citizens according to party family, ideology, inclusion in government, populism and social class reveals that MPs from left‐wing or right‐wing radical and populist parties, representatives sitting on the opposition benches and those belonging to lower classes tend to hold representational preferences that are more in line with the preferences of their own supporters or individuals belonging to the same group as themselves, but also with those of the entire electorate. However, even among these politicians there are few delegates. Examining whether citizens’ and politicians’ representational preferences are driven by similar determinants, we assessed the influence of their ideological orientations, socioeconomic status and support for (or affiliation with) a party in government on their representational preferences. For citizens, our results indicate that locating oneself on the right of the ideological spectrum is related to higher scores on the delegate–trustee scale, while supporting a populist party seems to decrease voters’ favourability toward trusteeship. Politicians’ preferences could not be explained by similar factors as none of the tested factors were significant. In line with our congruence analysis, there seems to be little variation in MPs’ representational preferences. Even groups of MPs that can be thought of as most likely to be delegates turn out to be staunch trustees, potentially causing frustration among citizens preferring delegate‐style representation.
How much autonomy elected representatives should have in looking after the interests of their constituents is a central question of democratic theory. While much research has been conducted on the representational roles adopted by elected representatives, we currently lack an understanding of citizens’ preferences for contrasting models of representation, more specifically whether they believe representatives should primarily act as instructed delegates, closely following public opinion or rather as trustees, relying on their own convictions and judgement. As a result, we know relatively little about how congruent citizens’ and politicians’ representational preferences are, whether some subgroups of citizens and politicians are more congruent with each other than others and whether citizens’ and politicians’ representational preferences are driven by the same determinants. Using data from 13 countries, we assess the level of congruence between voters’ and MPs’ preferences in representational style. In all countries, citizens favouring delegate‐style MPs are poorly represented as the vast majority of representatives display a moderate to strong preference for trusteeship. Analysing subgroups of politicians and citizens according to party family, ideology, inclusion in government, populism and social class reveals that MPs from left‐wing or right‐wing radical and populist parties, representatives sitting on the opposition benches and those belonging to lower classes tend to hold representational preferences that are more in line with the preferences of their own supporters or individuals belonging to the same group as themselves, but also with those of the entire electorate. However, even among these politicians there are few delegates. Examining whether citizens’ and politicians’ representational preferences are driven by similar determinants, we assessed the influence of their ideological orientations, socioeconomic status and support for (or affiliation with) a party in government on their representational preferences. For citizens, our results indicate that locating oneself on the right of the ideological spectrum is related to higher scores on the delegate–trustee scale, while supporting a populist party seems to decrease voters’ favourability toward trusteeship. Politicians’ preferences could not be explained by similar factors as none of the tested factors were significant. In line with our congruence analysis, there seems to be little variation in MPs’ representational preferences. Even groups of MPs that can be thought of as most likely to be delegates turn out to be staunch trustees, potentially causing frustration among citizens preferring delegate‐style representation.
The rise of new populist parties has raised concerns for representative political systems and the quality of democracies, by challenging the liberal checks and balances in the name of the ‘general will’. Empirical research has found that populist voters tend to be more dissatisfied with democracy and supportive of direct procedures, while feelings of misrepresentation increase the display of populist attitudes. However, it remains unclear whether this also applies to candidates. This study investigates the differences in democratic attitudes of candidates from populist and non-populist parties, relying on data from the Comparative Candidates Survey. It explores the factors that account for diverging attitudes, particularly regarding party- and individual-level mechanisms. Results suggest that populist candidates tend to reveal lower levels of democratic satisfaction and more negative attitudes towards elections, as well as stronger preferences for direct procedures. These findings have significant implications for both populist studies and the field of political representation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.