IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v132y2020icp61-76.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of transportation priority congruence for political legitimacy

Author

Listed:
  • Christiansen, Petter

Abstract

Congruence, defined as how closely the opinions of politicians match the policy preferences of voters, is a crucial aspect with respect to political legitimacy since a fundamental objective of democracy is to provide citizens with the policies they want. Yet there are not many studies that have analyzed the extent citizens and politicians are congruent when it comes to the field of transport. By studying transportation policy priorities of politicians and citizens concerning the use of (i) restrictive instruments and (ii) public transport instruments, this article contributes to the literature in at least three ways. First, the results illustrate how the priority of transportation policies varies between politicians and citizens. Politicians tend to prioritize restrictive measures more so than citizens whereas citizens tend to prioritize a reduction of public transport fares higher than politicians. Second, the article shows how the priority given transportation policy instruments is highly dependent on political ideology. Politicians representing parties to the center or left tend to prioritize the use of restrictive measures higher than politicians representing conservative parties. Third, the article explores whether there is a relationship between transportation policy congruence and political legitimacy. The article shows that lack of congruence is associated with a reduced level of trust towards local politicians and citizens being less likely to support local regime principles. These are important findings inasmuch as the literature suggests that lack of political support potentially make citizens more likely to call for radical changes, demonstrate and even abstain from the political process altogether.

Suggested Citation

  • Christiansen, Petter, 2020. "The effects of transportation priority congruence for political legitimacy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 61-76.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:132:y:2020:i:c:p:61-76
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.11.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856419306068
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2019.11.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Björn Hårsman & John M. Quigley, 2010. "Political and public acceptability of congestion pricing: Ideology and self-interest," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 854-874.
    2. Theresa Erin Enright, 2013. "Mass Transportation in the Neoliberal City: The Mobilizing Myths of the Grand Paris Express," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(4), pages 797-813, April.
    3. Justen, Andreas & Fearnley, Nils & Givoni, Moshe & Macmillen, James, 2014. "A process for designing policy packaging: Ideals and realities," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 9-18.
    4. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hamilton, Carl, 2016. "Why experience changes attitudes to congestion pricing: The case of Gothenburg," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-16.
    5. Edwards, Marion & Mackett, Roger L, 1996. "Developing new urban public transport systems : An irrational decision-making process," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 225-239, October.
    6. Jennings, Will & Wlezien, Christopher, 2015. "Preferences, Problems and Representation," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 659-681, September.
    7. Bafumi, Joseph & Herron, Michael C., 2010. "Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(3), pages 519-542, August.
    8. Enelow,James M. & Hinich,Melvin J., 1984. "The Spatial Theory of Voting," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521275156.
    9. Miller, Arthur H. & Listhaug, Ola, 1990. "Political Parties and Confidence in Government: A Comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 357-386, July.
    10. Linovski, Orly & Baker, Dwayne Marshall & Manaugh, Kevin, 2018. "Equity in practice? Evaluations of equity in planning for bus rapid transit," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 75-87.
    11. May, Anthony D. & Kelly, Charlotte & Shepherd, Simon, 2006. "The principles of integration in urban transport strategies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 319-327, July.
    12. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    13. Hatzopoulou, M. & Miller, E.J., 2008. "Institutional integration for sustainable transportation policy in Canada," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 149-162, May.
    14. Deakin, Elizabeth & Harvey, Greig & Pozdena, Randall & Yarema, Geoffrey, 1996. "Transportation Pricing Strategies for California: An Assessment of Congestion, Emissions, Energy. And Equity Impacts," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt723002kt, University of California Transportation Center.
    15. Steinsland, Christian & Fridstrøm, Lasse & Madslien, Anne & Minken, Harald, 2018. "The climate, economic and equity effects of fuel tax, road toll and commuter tax credit," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 225-241.
    16. Christiansen, Petter, 2018. "Public support of transport policy instruments, perceived transport quality and satisfaction with democracy. What is the relationship?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 305-318.
    17. Rehfeld, Andrew, 2009. "Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(2), pages 214-230, May.
    18. Elisabeth R. Gerber & Jeffrey B. Lewis, 2004. "Beyond the Median: Voter Preferences, District Heterogeneity, and Political Representation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(6), pages 1364-1383, December.
    19. Dill, Jennifer & Weinstein, Asha, 2007. "How to pay for transportation? A survey of public preferences in California," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 346-356, July.
    20. Tønnesen, Anders & Krogstad, Julie Runde & Christiansen, Petter & Isaksson, Karolina, 2019. "National goals and tools to fulfil them: A study of opportunities and pitfalls in Norwegian metagovernance of urban mobility," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 35-44.
    21. Hansla, André & Hysing, Erik & Nilsson, Andreas & Martinsson, Johan, 2017. "Explaining voting behavior in the Gothenburg congestion tax referendum," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 98-106.
    22. Richard Brody & Benjamin Page, 1973. "Indifference, alientation and rational decisions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, June.
    23. Fiva, Jon H. & Halse, Askill H., 2016. "Local favoritism in at-large proportional representation systems," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 15-26.
    24. Sara B. Hobolt, 2012. "Citizen Satisfaction with Democracy in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(S1), pages 88-105, March.
    25. Marsden, Greg & Reardon, Louise, 2017. "Questions of governance: Rethinking the study of transportation policy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 238-251.
    26. Manville, Michael & Levine, Adam Seth, 2018. "What motivates public support for public transit?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 567-580.
    27. Mansbridge, Jane, 2003. "Rethinking Representation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(4), pages 515-528, November.
    28. Eliasson, Jonas & Jonsson, Lina, 2011. "The unexpected "yes": Explanatory factors behind the positive attitudes to congestion charges in Stockholm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 636-647, August.
    29. Hull, Angela, 2008. "Policy integration: What will it take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 94-103, March.
    30. Mackett, Roger L. & Edwards, Marion, 1998. "The impact of new urban public transport systems: will the expectations be met?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 231-245, May.
    31. Brian Taylor & Eric Morris, 2015. "Public transportation objectives and rider demographics: are transit’s priorities poor public policy?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 347-367, March.
    32. Moshe Givoni & James Macmillen & David Banister & Eran Feitelson, 2013. "From Policy Measures to Policy Packages," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 1-20, January.
    33. Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "The role of attitude structures, direct experience and reframing for the success of congestion pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 81-95.
    34. Eva Sørensen & Jacob Torfing, 2019. "Designing institutional platforms and arenas for interactive political leadership," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(10), pages 1443-1463, October.
    35. Hysing, Erik & Isaksson, Karolina, 2015. "Building acceptance for congestion charges – the Swedish experiences compared," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 52-60.
    36. Jeffrey R. Lax & Justin H. Phillips, 2012. "The Democratic Deficit in the States," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(1), pages 148-166, January.
    37. Hilary Nixon & Asha Weinstein Agrawal, 2019. "Would Americans pay more in taxes for better transportation? Answers from seven years of national survey data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 819-840, June.
    38. Miller, Warren E. & Stokes, Donald E., 1963. "Constituency Influence in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(1), pages 45-56, March.
    39. Michael Manville & Benjamin Cummins, 2015. "Why do voters support public transportation? Public choices and private behavior," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 303-332, March.
    40. Curini, Luigi & Jou, Willy & Memoli, Vincenzo, 2012. "Satisfaction with Democracy and the Winner/Loser Debate: The Role of Policy Preferences and Past Experience," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 241-261, April.
    41. Matthew Palm & Susan Handy, 2018. "Sustainable transportation at the ballot box: a disaggregate analysis of the relative importance of user travel mode, attitudes and self-interest," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 121-141, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christiansen, Petter, 2018. "Public support of transport policy instruments, perceived transport quality and satisfaction with democracy. What is the relationship?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 305-318.
    2. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    3. Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Is congestion pricing fair? Consumer and citizen perspectives on equity effects," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1-15.
    4. Eliasson, Jonas, 2017. "Congestion pricing," MPRA Paper 88224, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Boggio, Margherita & Beria, Paolo, 2019. "The role of transport supply in the acceptability of pollution charge extension. The case of Milan," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 92-106.
    6. Michael Peress, 2013. "Candidate positioning and responsiveness to constituent opinion in the U.S. House of Representatives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 77-94, July.
    7. Axsen, Jonn & Wolinetz, Michael, 2021. "Taxes, tolls and ZEV zones for climate: Synthesizing insights on effectiveness, efficiency, equity, acceptability and implementation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    8. Wang, Xize & Rodríguez, Daniel A. & Mahendra, Anjali, 2021. "Support for market-based and command-and-control congestion relief policies in Latin American cities: Effects of mobility, environmental health, and city-level factors," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 91-108.
    9. Roberto Brunetti & Matthieu Pourieux, 2023. "Representative Policy-Makers? A Behavioral Experiment with French Politicians," Working Papers 2319, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    10. Alan E. Wiseman, 2006. "A Theory of Partisan Support and Entry Deterrence in Electoral Competition," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 123-158, April.
    11. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    12. Christian Oltra & Roser Sala & Sergi López-Asensio & Silvia Germán & Àlex Boso, 2021. "Individual-Level Determinants of the Public Acceptance of Policy Measures to Improve Urban Air Quality: The Case of the Barcelona Low Emission Zone," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13, January.
    13. Mansbridge, Jane, 2008. "A "Selection Model" of Political Representation," Working Paper Series rwp08-010, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    14. Matsusaka, John G., 2017. "When Do Legislators Follow Constituent Opinion? Evidence from Matched Roll Call and Referendum Votes," Working Papers 264, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    15. Barbara Dluhosch & Daniel Horgos & Klaus W. Zimmermann, 2016. "EU enlargement and satisfaction with democracy: a peculiar case of immiserizing growth," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 273-298, September.
    16. Morton, Craig & Mattioli, Giulio & Anable, Jillian, 2021. "Public acceptability towards Low Emission Zones: The role of attitudes, norms, emotions, and trust," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 256-270.
    17. Royce Carroll & Hiroki Kubo, 2018. "Polarization and ideological congruence between parties and supporters in Europe," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 247-265, July.
    18. Yusuf, Juita-Elena (Wie) & O’Connell, Lenahan & Anuar, Khairul A., 2014. "For whom the tunnel be tolled: A four-factor model for explaining willingness-to-pay tolls," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 13-21.
    19. Tønnesen, Anders & Hanssen, Gro Sandkjær & Hansen, Karsten Bruun & Valencia, Sandra C., 2022. "Integrative climate leadership in multi-level policy packages for urban mobility - A study of governance systems in two Nordic urban regions," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 309-317.
    20. Stadelmann, David & Portmann, Marco & Eichenberger, Reiner, 2016. "The Influence of Party Affiliations on Representation of Voter Preferences in Majoritarian vs. Proportional Systems," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145705, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:132:y:2020:i:c:p:61-76. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.