IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v14y2013i1p3-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Representation in the European Parliament: Factors affecting the attitude congruence of voters and candidates in the EP elections

Author

Listed:
  • Agnieszka Walczak
  • Wouter van der Brug

Abstract

This article examines the extent to which individual-, party- and system-level characteristics affect the attitude congruence of voters and candidates for elections to the European Parliament. It examines attitudes towards basic policy packages in the socioeconomic and libertarian/authoritarian issue domains and on immigration and European Union integration. The analysis is based on the 2009 European Election Study and European Election Candidate Survey, which covered 27 countries of the European Union (EU), 162 parties and over 11,500 respondents. It shows that the European Parliament suffers from inequalities in representation for different groups of citizens, representing much better the attitudes of educated, middle-class and politically knowledgeable voters. Furthermore, the analysis uncovers significant differences across political parties in how well they match up to voters. We provide tentative evidence suggesting that voters are better represented in open and ordered ballot systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Agnieszka Walczak & Wouter van der Brug, 2013. "Representation in the European Parliament: Factors affecting the attitude congruence of voters and candidates in the EP elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:14:y:2013:i:1:p:3-22
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116512456089
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116512456089
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116512456089?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Schuur, Wijbrandt H., 2003. "Mokken Scale Analysis: Between the Guttman Scale and Parametric Item Response Theory," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 139-163, April.
    2. Cees Van Der Eijk, 2001. "Measuring Agreement in Ordered Rating Scales," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 325-341, August.
    3. Hermann Schmitt & Jacques Thomassen, 2000. "Dynamic Representation: The Case of European Integration," MZES Working Papers 21, MZES.
    4. Hobolt, Sara B. & Høyland, Bjørn, 2011. "Selection and Sanctioning in European Parliamentary Elections," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 477-498, July.
    5. Basinger, Scott J. & Lavine, Howard, 2005. "Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(2), pages 169-184, May.
    6. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luiza-Maria FILIMON, 2015. "Beneficiaries Of The Second Order Election Model: Radical Right Parties In The European Parliament," Europolity – Continuity and Change in European Governance - New Series, Department of International Relations and European Integration, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, vol. 9(2), pages 1-31.

    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. César Merino-Soto & Gina Chávez-Ventura & Verónica López-Fernández & Guillermo M. Chans & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano, 2022. "Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L): Psychometric and Measurement Invariance Evidence in Peruvian Undergraduate Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Christopher J Williams, 2016. "Issuing reasoned opinions: The effect of public attitudes towards the European Union on the usage of the 'Early Warning System'," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 504-521, September.
    4. Enzo Loner, 2016. "A new way of looking at old things. An application of Guttman errors analysis to the study of environmental concern," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 823-847, March.
    5. Xiao Tang & Weiwei Chen & Tian Wu, 2018. "Do Authoritarian Governments Respond to Public Opinion on the Environment? Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    7. Cengiz Erisen & Elif Erisen, 2014. "Attitudinal Ambivalence towards Turkey's EU Membership," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 217-233, March.
    8. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    9. Scott Crichlow, 2002. "Legislators' Personality Traits and Congressional Support for Free Trade," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(5), pages 693-711, October.
    10. Kyriaki Nanou & Galina Zapryanova & Fanni Toth, 2017. "An ever-closer union? Measuring the expansion and ideological content of European Union policy-making through an expert survey," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(4), pages 678-693, December.
    11. Boyer, Pierre C. & Konrad, Kai A. & Roberson, Brian, 2017. "Targeted campaign competition, loyal voters, and supermajorities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 49-62.
    12. Garrick L. Percival, 2010. "Ideology, Diversity, and Imprisonment: Considering the Influence of Local Politics on Racial and Ethnic Minority Incarceration Rates," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1063-1082, December.
    13. T. W. G. Meer & E. Ouattara, 2019. "Putting ‘political’ back in political trust: an IRT test of the unidimensionality and cross-national equivalence of political trust measures," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(6), pages 2983-3002, November.
    14. Kim Quaile Hill & Tetsuya Matsubayashi, 2008. "Church Engagement, Religious Values, and Mass‐Elite Policy Agenda Agreement in Local Communities," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 570-584, July.
    15. Sean Gailmard & Jeffery A. Jenkins, 2009. "Agency Problems, the 17th Amendment, and Representation in the Senate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 324-342, April.
    16. Auerbach, Jan, 2022. "Productive Office and Political Elitism," MPRA Paper 114582, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Kimberly Turner, 2023. "A win or a flop? Measuring mass protest successfulness in authoritarian settings," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(1), pages 107-123, January.
    18. Stuart J Turnbull-Dugarte, 2020. "Why vote when you cannot choose? EU intervention and political participation in times of constraint," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 406-428, September.
    19. Hanna Ågren & Matz Dahlberg & Eva Mörk, 2007. "Do politicians’ preferences correspond to those of the voters? An investigation of political representation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(1), pages 137-162, January.
    20. Lindgren, Charlie, 2021. "Discontinuities: What is the value of having the lowest price or highest consumer rating on a price comparison website?," HFI Working Papers 19, Institute of Retail Economics (Handelns Forskningsinstitut).

    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:sae:eeupol:v:14:y:2013:i:1:p:3-22. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.