Party government and policy responsiveness. Evidence from three parliamentary democracies

Abstract

Does party government moderate the responsiveness of public policy to public opinion? Analysing a new dataset, we examine whether the ability of governments to respond to the public on 306 specific policy issues in Denmark, Germany and the UK is affected by the extent of coalition conflict and by the fit of the considered policy changes with the government preferences. We find a systematic but relatively weak positive impact of public support on the likelihood and speed of policy change. Contrary to expectations, a higher number of coalition partners are not associated with fewer policy changes nor with weaker responsiveness to public opinion. We also find no evidence that responsiveness to public opinion is necessarily weaker for policy changes that go against the preferences of the government. Rather, it appears that public and government support for policy change are substitute resources.

Government capacity, societal trust or party preferences: what accounts for the variety of national policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe?

“…These variables are related to the transaction costs of negotiating and adopting laws and policies in cabinet decision making. With a higher number of coalition partners, reaching a compromise policy decision becomes more difficult, takes more bargaining rounds and can run into a stalemate (Toshkov et al, 2020). Moreover, even when a compromise is found, it is more likely to embody a piecemeal solution with more vague provisions open to interpretation and the discretion of implementing agents.…”

Government Capacity, Societal Trust or Party Preferences? What Accounts for the Variety of National Policy Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Europe?

“…These variables are related to the transaction costs of negotiating and adopting laws and policies in cabinet decision making. With a higher number of coalition partners, reaching a compromise policy decision becomes more difficult, takes more bargaining rounds and can run into a stalemate (Toshkov, Mäder, and Rasmussen 2020). Moreover, even when a compromise is found, it is more likely to embody a piecemeal solution with more vague provision open to interpretation and the discretion of implementing agents.…”

Civil Society Engagement and Policy Representation in Europe

“…The representation of citizen preferences in the adopted policies is a key aspect and goal of contemporary democratic governance (Dahl, 1989). Accordingly, a large body of political science literature is devoted to studying the direct linkage between opinion and policy (e.g., Bevan & Jennings, 2014; Hobolt & Klemmensen, 2008; Lax & Phillips, 2012; Page & Shapiro, 1983; Rasmussen, Reher, & Toshkov, 2018; Toshkov et al, 2018; Wlezien, 1995). The literature also examines what factors affect the strength of this relationship, paying most attention to political institutions and issue salience (e.g., Hobolt & Klemmensen, 2008; Kang & Powell, 2010; Lax & Phillips, 2009, 2012; Monroe, 1998; Rasmussen, Reher, & Toshkov, 2018; Wlezien & Soroka, 2012).…”

“…In addition, the study contributes to the literature that examines the factors influencing the quality of policy representation (e.g., Hobolt & Klemmensen, 2008; Kang & Powell, 2010; Lax & Phillips, 2009, 2012; Peters & Ensink, 2014; Rasmussen, Romeijn, & Toshkov, 2018; Toshkov, Mäder, & Rasmussen, 2018; Wlezien, 2005). It provides a new perspective to the more common view of associations as lobbyists by focusing on the role that civil society associations active on an issue play regardless of their policy positions.…”