Can politicians facilitate citizen acceptance of unwelcome policy decisions by acting responsively during the decision-making process ? We suggest a framework to analyze the responsiveness-acceptance connection and report findings from two studies designed for that purpose. First, we ran a survey experiment to examine how exogenously induced responsiveness actions affect reactions to a policy decision. Second, we conducted a case study to see how results hold up in a real-world setting. We find that responsiveness actions are rewarded provided that citizens are convinced that politicians have paid attention to their wishes and views. Responsiveness actions that signal willingness to communicate ("to listen" and "to explain") are more effective than the action to follow majority opinion ("to adapt"). However, the responsiveness-acceptance connection is sensitive to perceptual bias; policy losers are hard pressed to accept that politicians have indeed acted responsively.
Keywords
research-article2016
740
Comparative Political Studies 50(6)Politicians frequently make policy decisions that are unwelcome to some citizens. Examples of this kind are decisions to raise income tax, to cut back on unemployment compensation, and to regulate Internet use. An unwanted consequence of such decisions is that citizens who have their preferences denied are forced to live by rules that they do not approve of (Przeworski, 2010). Because democratic states seek to minimize coercion, it is preferable that disappointed citizens are motivated to voluntarily accept the new policies (Levi, 1997). 1 When searching for ways to facilitate decision acceptance, democratic theory directs attention to procedural factors. The argument is that citizens have reason to accept decisions they dislike if they are made through fair procedural arrangements (e.g., Dahl, 1989). In the context of policy decisions, a central procedural requirement is that politicians are responsive to citizens' wishes and views (Dahl, 1971;Pitkin, 1967). Responsiveness, thus, is regarded as a means to counteract the unwanted consequences of controversial policy decisions: If politicians act responsively during the decisionmaking process, they will be rewarded not only by policy winners but also by policy losers who, while disappointed with the outcome of the decision, will appreciate the fairness of the process.However, the procedural solution is demanding on policy losers. It works only if disappointed citizens agree with politicians about the meaning of acting responsively and if procedural considerations can indeed compensate for the burden of living under rules that one disagree with. Acknowledging that we are dealing with a complex problem in democracy, this article sets out to improve on our common understanding of the responsiveness-acceptance connection.In the most general sense, politicians act responsively by paying attention to citizens' wishes and demands (Korolev, 2015;Soroka & Wlezien, 2010). An obvious way for politicians to demonstrate attentivene...