Abstract

Abstract Should those who would be disproportionately affected by a policy change have more influence on that reform than the average citizen? And does it matter whether the affected individuals stand to benefit or lose out from the proposed reform? Despite longstanding debates on proportionality, asymmetry, and affected interests in the democratic theory literature, we know little about public opinion on these questions. This study, therefore, uses an original survey of 3,200 U.S. respondents to explore these attitudes. To do so, it builds on related work highlighting the potential relevance of the type of affectedness as well as individual-level variation in political efficacy, examining (1) the relationship between the preferred influence of negatively versus positively affected citizens; and (2) the role of external efficacy in shaping these preferences. Results suggest that most respondents favor equal influence regardless of affectedness, but that greater external efficacy may increase the preferred influence of negatively and positively affected citizens.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.