IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/227133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Populists Represent? Theoretical Considerations on How Populist Parties (Might) Enact their Representative Function

Author

Listed:
  • Werner, Annika
  • Giebler, Heiko

Abstract

Are populist parties bad for representative democracy or are they filling a representative gap? While it has been broadly established that the emergence and success of populist parties is not merely a sign of protest, there is still a sparsity of empirical investigations into whether these parties represent hitherto under- or unrepresented social groups or whether they offer a policy profile that was in demand but not present. Using Pitkin’s concepts of symbolic, descriptive and substantive representation, this article opens up the dimensions in which populist parties might challenge or aid democratic representation. It then places the articles in the Special Issue ‘Populist Representation of, by and for the People?’ along these dimensions and highlights their specific contributions.

Suggested Citation

  • Werner, Annika & Giebler, Heiko, 2019. "Do Populists Represent? Theoretical Considerations on How Populist Parties (Might) Enact their Representative Function," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 55(4), pages 379-392.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:227133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/227133/1/Full-text-article-Werner-et-al-Do-populists-represent.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Royed, Terry J., 1996. "Testing the Mandate Model in Britain and the United States: Evidence from the Reagan and Thatcher Eras," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 45-80, January.
    2. Meguid, Bonnie M., 2005. "Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 347-359, August.
    3. Benjamin Moffitt & Simon Tormey, 2014. "Rethinking Populism: Politics, Mediatisation and Political Style," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 62(2), pages 381-397, June.
    4. Lawrence J. Grossback & David A.M. Peterson & James A. Stimson, 2005. "Comparing Competing Theories on the Causes of Mandate Perceptions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(2), pages 406-419, April.
    5. Michael Freeden, 1998. "Is Nationalism a Distinct Ideology?," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 46(4), pages 748-765, September.
    6. Margaret Canovan, 1999. "Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 47(1), pages 2-16, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Matt Golder & Jacek Stramski, 2010. "Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 90-106, January.
    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. Giebler, Heiko & Werner, Annika, 2020. "Cure, Poison or Placebo? The Consequences of Populist and Radical Party Success for Representative Democracy," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 56(3), pages 293-306.

    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. Robert Johns & Ann‐Kristin Kölln, 2020. "Moderation and Competence: How a Party's Ideological Position Shapes Its Valence Reputation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 649-663, July.
    2. Jelle Koedam, 2021. "Avoidance, ambiguity, alternation: Position blurring strategies in multidimensional party competition," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 655-675, December.
    3. Lasco, Gideon & Curato, Nicole, 2019. "Medical populism," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 1-8.
    4. Ruben Durante & Paolo Pinotti & Andrea Tesei, 2019. "The Political Legacy of Entertainment TV," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(7), pages 2497-2530, July.
    5. Stadelmann, David & Portmann, Marco & Eichenberger, Reiner, 2013. "Quantifying parliamentary representation of constituents’ preferences with quasi-experimental data," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 170-180.
    6. Kirill Zhirkov, 2014. "New Political Issues, Niche Parties, And Spatial Voting In Multiparty Systems: Immigration As A Dimension Of Electoral Competition In Scandinavia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 12/PS/2014, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    7. Stadelmann, David & Torrens, Gustavo, 2020. "Who is the ultimate boss of legislators: Voters, special interest groups or parties?," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224562, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    8. Mikael Elinder & Henrik Jordahl & Panu Poutvaara, 2008. "Selfish and Prospective: Theory and Evidence of Pocketbook Voting," CESifo Working Paper Series 2489, CESifo.
    9. Andrea Junqueira & Ali Kagalwala & Christine S. Lipsmeyer, 2023. "What's your problem? How issue ownership and partisan discourse influence personal concerns," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(1), pages 25-37, January.
    10. James J. Fahey, 2021. "Building Populist Discourse: An Analysis of Populist Communication in American Presidential Elections, 1896–2016," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1268-1288, July.
    11. Christopher J. Williams & John Ishiyama, 2022. "How voter distributions, issue ownership, and position influence party emphasis," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1084-1100, September.
    12. Andrea Junqueira & Thiago N. Silva & Guy D. Whitten, 2023. "What about us? Political competition, economic performance, immigration, and nativist appeals," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(1), pages 11-24, January.
    13. Jennings, Colin, 2011. "The good, the bad and the populist: A model of political agency with emotional voters," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 611-624.
    14. Russell J Dalton, 2017. "Citizens’ representation in the 2009 European Parliament elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 188-211, June.
    15. Bayerlein, Michael, 2021. "Chasing the Other 'Populist Zeitgeist'? Mainstream Parties and the Rise of Right-Wing Populism," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 240403, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    16. Oliver Hidalgo, 2019. "The Theory of Democratic Antinomies and the Identification of Value Trade-Offs in Political Practice," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 264-274.
    17. Christoffer Green‐Pedersen, 2007. "The Growing Importance of Issue Competition: The Changing Nature of Party Competition in Western Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(3), pages 607-628, October.
    18. Jan Rovny, 2012. "Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(2), pages 269-292, June.
    19. Simon Otjes & André Krouwel, 2023. "The nuclear option: Voting for the pan-European party Volt," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 726-750, December.
    20. Portmann, Marco & Stadelmann, David & Eichenberger, Reiner, 2022. "Incentives dominate selection – Chamber-changing legislators are driven by electoral rules and voter preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 353-366.

    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:zbw:espost:227133. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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.