Input from Whom? Public Reactions to Consultation Measures

Abstract

Most legislation neither affects nor interests citizens equally. But should this variation in interest and affectedness impact who gets to influence policy reforms? This article examines US public opinion on this issue using a national survey experiment varying both the policy outcome (a bill’s passage/failure) and the type of constituency input granted by elected representatives (none/constituency surveys/targeting interested constituents/targeting affected constituents). It then compares reactions across treatment groups, examining the impact of outcome favourability as well as external and internal political efficacy. Results suggest that granting constituents explicit policy influence consistently affected perceived responsiveness in the expected manner, but that the different consultation procedures had more varied effects on decision acceptance. Furthermore, where the procedures impacted decision acceptance, they pushed the reactions of both the pleased and the displeased towards more muted responses. Finally, similar ‘cushion effects’ were present when external and internal political efficacy were incorporated into the analysis.

Distributing Democratic Influence: External Efficacy and the Preferred Influence of Policy Winners and Losers

“…On the other hand, however, debates in political theory on proportionality specifically foreground the trade-off between the influence of affected citizens and "average" ones: The nub of the argument is that we should change the distribution of influence, redistributing it from average to affected citizens-yet public opinion on this proposition has rarely been tested (c.f. Kevins, 2022;Kevins & Robison, 2021).…”

“…Despite longstanding debates on this question in political theory (e.g., Brighouse & Fleurbaey, 2010;Angell & Huseby, 2020), we do not yet know what citizens think about the relevance and desirability of any such principle of proportionality. There are good reasons to think, however, that individuals might take a range of stances on this issueperhaps concluding that policy-affected groups deserve extra influence (due to affectedness), less influence (due to self-interested biases), or the same amount of influence as everyone else (see Kevins & Robison, 2021;Kevins, 2022). What is more, attitudes may well vary based on whether the affected individuals stand to benefit or lose out from the policy: Giving negatively affected citizens an opportunity to mitigate losses may be viewed differently than letting positively affected citizens further entrench their gains (see Bengtson, 2021, for a discussion of this potential asymmetry).…”

Do Public Consultations Reduce Blame Attribution? The Impact of Consultation Characteristics, Gender, and Gender Attitudes

“…In Online Appendix 4 (OA4), we also examine the relevance of a respondent's stance on the proposal (e.g. Esaiasson et al, 2019;Kevins, 2020) as well as their shared or contrasting partisanship with the legislator (e.g. Bisgaard, 2015;Malhotra & Kuo, 2008).…”