Non-binding linked-issues referenda: Analysis and an application
Non-binding referenda (‘petitions') are an instrument of direct democracy that allows citizens to signal preferences to politicians outside the electoral cycle. This paper provides a simple theoretical and empirical analysis of a particular form of non-binding referenda, so-called linked-issues petitions. It analyzes the ability of issue linkage to increase participation levels above those of single-issue petitions and applies the analytical insights to a controversial referendum held in Austria in 2002 that linked issues of transboundary nuclear risk and Eastern enlargement of the European Union. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 124 (2005)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/public+finance/journal/11127/PS2|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Susan Feigenbaum & Lynn Karoly & David Levy, 1988. "When votes are words not deeds: Some evidence from the Nuclear Freeze Referendum," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 201-216, September.
- Tollison, Robert D. & Willett, Thomas D., 1979. "An economic theory of mutually advantageous issue linkages in international negotiations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(04), pages 425-449, September.
- Rodney Fort & Douglas Bunn, 1998. "Whether one votes and how one votes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 51-62, April.
- Sayeed R. Mehmood & Daowei Zhang, 2001. "A Roll Call Analysis of the Endangered Species Act Amendments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 501-512.
- Mueller,Dennis C., 2003. "Public Choice III," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521894753, December.
- Kalt, Joseph P & Zupan, Mark A, 1984. "Capture and Ideology in the Economic Theory of Politics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 279-300, June.
- Fort, Rodney & Bunn, Douglas N, 1998. "Whether One Votes and How One Votes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(1-2), pages 51-62, April.
- Grandmont, Jean-Michel, 1978. "Intermediate Preferences and the Majority Rule," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 317-330, March.
- Mark Burkey & Garey Durden, 1998. "The Political Economy of Clean Air Legislation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 119-134, March.
- Charles Perrings & Bruce Hannon, 2001. "An Introduction to Spatial Discounting," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 23-38.
- Fischer, A J, 1999. "The Probability of Being Decisive," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 101(3-4), pages 267-283, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:124:y:2005:i:3:p:249-266. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.