Direct Democracy In Europe Research Articles

More or less equality? Direct democracy in Europe from 1990 to 2015

Within the last decades, western democracies have experienced a rise of inequality, with the gap between lower and upper class citizens steadily increasing and a widespread sentiment of growing inequalities also in the political sphere. Against this background, and in the context of the current “crisis of democracy”, democratic innovations such as direct democratic instruments are discussed as a very popular means to bring citizens back in. However, research on direct democracy has produced rather inconsistent results with regard to the question of which effects referenda and initiatives have on equality. Studies in this field are often limited to single countries and certain aspects of equality. Moreover, most existing studies look at the mere availability of direct democratic instruments instead of actual bills that are put to a vote. This paper aims to take a first step to fill these gaps by giving an explorative overview of the outputs of direct democratic bills on multiple equality dimensions, analyzing all national referenda and initiatives in European democracies between 1990 and 2015. How many pro- and contra-equality bills have been put to a vote, how many of those succeeded at the ballot, and are there differences between country groups? Our findings show that a majority of direct democratic bills was not related to equality at all. Regarding the successful bills, we detect some regional differences along with the general tendency that there are more pro- than contra-equality bills. Our paper sheds new light on the question if direct democracy can serve as an appropriate means to complement representative democracy and to shape democratic institutions in the future. The potential of direct democracy in fostering or impeding equality should be an important criterion for the assessment of claims to extend decision-making by citizens.

Europejska inicjatywa obywatelska — niewykorzystany potencjał w Polsce?

THE EUROPEAN CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE — UNTAPPED POTENTIAL IN POLAND?The activity of citizens in the modern world goes far beyond the borders of nation-states. Decisions taken at other levels, e.g. in the European Union, are increasingly affecting the quality of life. The conviction about the imperfection of the functioning of democracy in the European Union was the main reason for starting the debate on the introduction of direct democracy instruments. The discussion on the role of the European Citizens’ Initiative indicated the possibility of increasing the level of participation in political life or building a conscious civil society. The citizens’ initiative was introduced by Article 114 of the Treaty on European Union, followed by the implementation of the European Parliament and Council Regulation on the Citizens’ Initiative of 16 February 2011. The implementation of the European Citizens’ Initiative was seen as an opportunity to increase public acceptance of the process of further European integration. The lapse of seven years since the introduction of this solution seems to be a good opportunity to assess its effectiveness. The article points to the basic theoretical issues related to democracy. Subsequently, the procedure for conducting the European Citizens’ Initiative is characterized. Another issue raised is the awareness of Poles about this issue — based on their own research. In the final part, the conclusions and basic problems in the functioning of this solution of direct democracy in Europe are indicated. These problems include little knowledge and awareness of the existence of European citizens’ initiatives among citizens of the Member States and national institutions. It is far from using its full potential in terms of political solutions. Perhaps there is also a lack of involvement of citizens, or the lack of real influence on the adoption of the project discourages European society. In addition, there are differences in the mentality of the various nations of the Member States and problems related to financing. The mere fact of being able to use such a solution deserves recognition.

Direct Democracy in Europe: Potentials and Pitfalls

AbstractDiagnoses of a democratic recession or ‘hollowing out’ of democracy are numerous and varied but usually encompass the following symptoms: a decline in turnout and other forms of political participation; policy making that is increasingly detached from ordinary citizens and their preferences; and an erosion of trust in government and satisfaction with democracy among citizens – all of which ultimately challenge the legitimacy of democratic institutions. Direct democracy is one of the most prominent, far‐reaching and popular remedies proposed in response to such diagnoses. It, by allowing citizens to directly vote on questions usually decided by representatives, seems intuitively appealing as an obvious extension and deepening of democracy. In this article I survey the potentials but also pitfalls of an increased institutionalization of direct democracy and use thereof in the countries of the EU focusing on the three key aspects identified above: representation, turnout and citizens’ political support.

Contesting the European Union? Why the Dutch and the French Rejected the European Constitution

The process of establishing a constitution for Europe came to an end when voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the proposal. Analyzing both media coverage and survey data, this article seeks to disentangle the reasons why a majority of voters rejected the European Constitution. The authors’ findings suggest that the campaign played an important role in priming certain attitudes and that vote choices, in turn, were driven by specific issue concerns rather than general dissatisfaction with the European Union or national governments. These findings have implications not only for our understanding of direct democracy in Europe but also for the study of campaign effects.

Direct democracy in Europe: a comprehensive reference guide to the initiative and referendum process in Europe

Direct democracy in Europe: a comprehensive reference guide to the initiative and referendum process in Europe

Response to Matsusaka: Estimating the Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Policy Responsiveness

Previous articleNext article No AccessResearch NotesResponse to Matsusaka: Estimating the Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Policy ResponsivenessMichael G. Hagen, Edward L. Lascher, Jr., and John F. CamobrecoMichael G. Hagen Search for more articles by this author , Edward L. Lascher, Jr. Search for more articles by this author , and John F. Camobreco Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 63, Number 4Nov., 2001 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00110 Views: 43Total views on this site Citations: 18Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 2001 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Gook Jin Kim, Suk Joon Hwang, Frances S. Berry Explaining the strictness of medical marijuanaregulations in states, The Social Science Journal 58, no.22 (Feb 2020): 186–205.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.04.003Arjun Vishwanath Electoral Institutions and Substantive Representation in Local Politics: The Effects of Ranked Choice Voting, SSRN Electronic Journal 105 (Jan 2021).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3802566Arndt Leininger Direct Democracy in Europe: Potentials and Pitfalls, Global Policy 6 (Jun 2015): 17–27.https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12224Patrick Flavin Income Inequality and Policy Representation in the American States, American Politics Research 40, no.11 (Aug 2011): 29–59.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X11416920R. Y. Shapiro Public Opinion and American Democracy, Public Opinion Quarterly 75, no.55 (Dec 2011): 982–1017.https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr053John D. Griffin, Patrick Flavin How Citizens and Their Legislators Prioritize Spheres of Representation, Political Research Quarterly 64, no.33 (Aug 2010): 520–533.https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912910373552Simon Hug Policy consequences of direct legislation theory, empirical models and evidence, Quality & Quantity 45, no.33 (Mar 2010): 559–578.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-010-9313-0Gregory B Lewis, Charles W Gossett Why Did Californians Pass Proposition 8? Stability and Change in Public Support for Same-Sex Marriage, California Journal of Politics and Policy 3, no.11 (Jan 2011).https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-4370.1130Joshua J. Dyck, Edward L. Lascher Direct Democracy and Political Efficacy Reconsidered, Political Behavior 31, no.33 (Dec 2008): 401–427.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9081-xJames Monogan, Virginia Gray, David Lowery Public Opinion, Organized Interests, and Policy Congruence in Initiative and Noninitiative U.S. States, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 9, no.33 (Jan 2021): 304–324.https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000900900303D. M. Daley, D. P. Haider-Markel, A. B. Whitford Checks, Balances, and the Cost of Regulation: Evidence from the American States, Political Research Quarterly 60, no.44 (Sep 2007): 696–706.https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907307517Kevin Arceneaux, Gregory A. Huber What to Do (and Not Do) with Multicollinearity in State Politics Research, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7, no.11 (Jan 2021): 81–101.https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000700700105Melissa J. Marschall, Anirudh V.S. Ruhil Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative Reconsidered: Addressing Endogeneity, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5, no.44 (Aug 2016): 327–355.https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000500500401Melissa J. Marschall, Anirudh V.S. Ruhil Of Models and Methods: A Response to Matsusaka, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5, no.44 (Aug 2016): 364–372.https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000500500403Michael S. Kang , Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 4, no.33 ( 2005): 217.https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2005.4.217Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan Measuring the Effect of Direct Democracy on State Policy: Not All Initiatives Are Created Equal, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 4, no.33 (Aug 2016): 345–363.https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000400400305Daniel A. Smith, Joseph Lubinski Direct Democracy During the Progressive Era: A Crack in the Populist Veneer?, Journal of Policy History 14, no.44 (Apr 2009): 349–383.https://doi.org/10.1353/jph.2002.0026Kevin Arceneaux Direct Democracy and the Link between Public Opinion and State Abortion Policy, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 2, no.44 (Jan 2021): 372–387.https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000200200403