Democracy / References and acknowledgements

References

Birdwell, J., Tryhorn, C., Feve, S. and Vibla, N. (2013), Backsliders: Measuring Democracy in the EU, London: Demos

Butt, S. and Curtice, J. (2010), ‘Duty in decline? Trends in attitudes to voting’ in Park, A., Curtice, J., Thomson, K., Phillips, M., Clery, E. and Butt, S. (eds.), British Social Attitudes: the 26th Report, London: Sage 

Coggan, P. (2013), The Last Vote: The Threats to Western Democracy, London: Allen Lane 

Curtice, J., and Seyd, B. (2012), ‘Constitutional reform: a recipe for restoring faith in our democracy?’ in Park, A., Clery, E., Curtice, J., Phillips, M. and Utting, D. (eds.), British Social Attitudes: the 29th Report, London: NatCen Social Research, available at:
www.bsa-29.natcen.ac.uk

Dahl, R.A. (1998), On democracy, New Haven: Yale University Press

Dalton, R.J. (2004), Democratic challenges, democratic choices. The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies, New York: Oxford University Press

Dalton, R.J., Shin, D.C. and Jou, W. (2007), Popular Conceptions of the Meaning of Democracy: Democratic Understanding in Unlikely Places, UC Irvine: Center for the Study of Democracy, available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2j74b860

Diamond, L. (2003), ‘Defining and Developing Democracy’ in Dahl, R.A., Shapiro, I. and Cheibub, J.A. (eds.), The Democracy Sourcebook, Cambridge: The MIT Press

Freedom House (2014), Freedom in the World 2014, available at: www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2014

Jackson, J., Hough, M., Farrall, S., Aromaa, K. and de Keijser, J. (2010), Trust in Justice: A Comparative European Analysis, available at: www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round5/questionnaire/ESS5_final_trust_in_police_
courts_module_template.pdf

Jacoby. W.G. (1994), ‘Public attitudes to government spending’, American Journal of Political Science, 38: 336–361

Kitschelt, H. (1994), The transformation of European social democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Kriesi, H., Morlino, L., Magalhaes, P., Alonso, S. and Ferrin, M. (2012), European’s understandings and evaluations of democracy, available at: www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round6/questionnaire/ESS6_final_understandings_
and_evaluation_of_democracy_module_template.pdf

Lee, L. and Young, P. (2013), ‘A disengaged Britain? Political interest and participation over 30 years’, in Park, A., Bryson, C., Clery, E., Curtice, J. and Phillips, M. (eds.), (2013), British Social Attitudes: the 30th Report, London: NatCen Social Research, available at:
www.bsa-30.natcen.ac.uk

Norris, P. (1999), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press 

Norris, P. (2011), Democratic deficit. Critical Citizens Revisited, New York: Cambridge University Press

Schumpeter, J.A. (1976), Capitalism, socialism, and democracy, 5th ed., London: Allen and Unwin

Stoker, G. (2006), Why Politics Matters: Making Democracy Work, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Webb, P. (2013), ‘Who is willing to participate? Dissatisfied democrats, stealth democrats and populists in the United Kingdom’, European Journal of Political Research, 52: 747–772

Welzel, C. and Klingemann, H-D. (2007), Understanding democratic congruence: a demand-supply perspective, UC Irvine: Center for the Study of Democracy, available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3nb7x3qs

Acknowledgements

European Social Survey Round 6 was funded by the European Commission (FP7, Research Infrastructures, Grant Agreement 262208), the European Science Foundation and academic funding bodies in participating countries (the ESRC in the UK). The views expressed are those of the authors alone.

Download chapter
Authors
Notes
  1. Blair, T. (2000), speech on Britishness, London, Mar 28. Retrieved 27 March 2014, from www.guardian.co.uk/britain/article/0,2763,184950,00.html. Brown, G. (2006), “The Future of Britishness”, speech presented to the Fabian Society’s New Year Conference, London, 14 January. Retrieved 27 March 2014, from www.fabians.org.uk. Cameron, D. (2011), speech on radicalization and Islamic extremism, speech presented at the Munich Security Conference, Munich, 5 February. Retrieved 27 March 2014, from www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=329.
  2. The European Social Survey provides nationally representative probability samples of all residents aged 15 and over in a number of European countries and covers a wide range of social and political topics. Six rounds of the survey have been carried out to date. Unlike the British Social Attitudes survey, the European Social Survey collects data for the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. However, NI cases are excluded from the analysis presented here and the remaining respondents were asked to evaluate democracy in Britain. The data for this chapter are from Round 6 of the survey conducted in the UK between September 2012 and January 2013. European Social Survey Round 6: European Social Survey Round 6 Data (2012/13). Data file edition 1.2. Design weights were applied in all analyses. Post-stratification weights were not available at the time of analysis but have since been added to the data file (Edition 2.0). Further information about the survey can be found at: www.europeansocialsurvey.org.
  3. European Values Study (2011): European Values Study 2008: Integrated Dataset (European Values Study 2008). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4800 Data file Version 3.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.11004.
  4. European Social Survey Round 6 data were available for 24 countries. A second data release in May 2014 included data from further countries. 
  5. The full question wording was: 
    Now some questions about democracy. Later on I will ask you about how democracy is working in Britain. First, however, I want you to think instead about how important you think different things are for democracy in general. There are no right or wrong answers so please just tell me what you think
  6. The four groupings are informed by theory and have been shown to work well empirically, producing high Cronbach’s alpha scores. Electoral dimension α = 0.80. Liberal dimension α = 0.82. Social dimension α = 0.74. Participatory dimension α = 0.71.
  7. Bases for Table 1.2 are as follows:
    Democracy _T_Notes _7 (1)

  8. Mean scores are based on the average response given by all those expressing an opinion. There is obviously a question regarding how reasonable it is to expect people to have thought about and formed meaningful opinions about all of the specific aspects of democracy asked about in the European Social Survey questionnaire. However, although around 5 per cent of respondents did answer “don’t know”, the vast majority of respondents were able to give an answer European Social Survey data showed. 
    Democracy _T_Notes _8

  9. Respondents with no educational qualifications are also less likely to hold an opinion about the requirements of democracy – with levels of “don’t knows” ranging from 9 per cent to 15 per cent across items – as are young people under 25 (7 per cent to 14 per cent “don’t knows”).

  10. Whether people would actually participate in a referendum is another matter. Support for direct democracy in principle is not always matched by high turnout in practice. In the 2011 referendum regarding the electoral system used to elect MPs, for example, turnout was just 42 per cent nationally (www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-referendums/Complete-set-of-provisional-turn-out-figures-for-referendum-now-published). Turnout in the 2012 elections to elect local police commissioners was even lower.

  11. European Social Survey respondents are asked: 

    In politics people sometimes talk of “left” and “right”. Using this card, where would you place yourself on this scale, where 0 means the left and 10 means the right?

    Responses 0 to 4 on the scale are categorised as being on the political left, 5 is categorised as centrist (group not shown in analysis) and responses 6 to 10 are categorised as being on the political right. 

  12. The items were the same as in Table 1.2 with one exception. Respondents were not asked to evaluate whether “… the courts are able to stop the government acting beyond its authority” applies in Britain. This item is not therefore included in any subsequent analysis.

  13. The full question wording was:

    Now some questions about the same topics, but this time about how you think democracy is working in Britain today. Again, there are no right or wrong answers, so please just tell me what you think 

  14. Bases for Table 1.6 are as follows:
    Democracy _T_Notes _14

  15. Responses on the importance and evaluation scales were rescaled to be between 0 and 1 rather than 0 and 10. The democratic deficit measure for each item, y, was then calculated as follows: (Importance of y (0 to 1) – Evaluation of whether y applies in Britain (0 to 1)) x Importance (0–1).

  16. Bases for Table 1.7 are as follows:

    Democracy _T_Notes _16

  17. European Social Survey data collected in 2010/11 as part of a module of questions on Trust in Justice provide further insights on this topic (Jackson et al., 2010). As many as 50 per cent of people in the UK think that a poor person is more likely than a rich person to be found guilty of an identical crime they did not commit while 30 per cent of respondents feel that someone of a different race or ethnic group from the majority would be more likely to be found guilty. (European Social Survey Round 5 Data (2010). Data file edition 3.0.)

  18. The average deficit on the social democracy dimension was -0.35 among those placing themselves on the left of the political spectrum, -0.25 among those in the centre and -0.20 among those on the right. 

Related links
  • Download chapter
  • Authors
  • Notes
    1. Blair, T. (2000), speech on Britishness, London, Mar 28. Retrieved 27 March 2014, from www.guardian.co.uk/britain/article/0,2763,184950,00.html. Brown, G. (2006), “The Future of Britishness”, speech presented to the Fabian Society’s New Year Conference, London, 14 January. Retrieved 27 March 2014, from www.fabians.org.uk. Cameron, D. (2011), speech on radicalization and Islamic extremism, speech presented at the Munich Security Conference, Munich, 5 February. Retrieved 27 March 2014, from www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=329.
    2. The European Social Survey provides nationally representative probability samples of all residents aged 15 and over in a number of European countries and covers a wide range of social and political topics. Six rounds of the survey have been carried out to date. Unlike the British Social Attitudes survey, the European Social Survey collects data for the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. However, NI cases are excluded from the analysis presented here and the remaining respondents were asked to evaluate democracy in Britain. The data for this chapter are from Round 6 of the survey conducted in the UK between September 2012 and January 2013. European Social Survey Round 6: European Social Survey Round 6 Data (2012/13). Data file edition 1.2. Design weights were applied in all analyses. Post-stratification weights were not available at the time of analysis but have since been added to the data file (Edition 2.0). Further information about the survey can be found at: www.europeansocialsurvey.org.
    3. European Values Study (2011): European Values Study 2008: Integrated Dataset (European Values Study 2008). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4800 Data file Version 3.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.11004.
    4. European Social Survey Round 6 data were available for 24 countries. A second data release in May 2014 included data from further countries. 
    5. The full question wording was: 
      Now some questions about democracy. Later on I will ask you about how democracy is working in Britain. First, however, I want you to think instead about how important you think different things are for democracy in general. There are no right or wrong answers so please just tell me what you think
    6. The four groupings are informed by theory and have been shown to work well empirically, producing high Cronbach’s alpha scores. Electoral dimension α = 0.80. Liberal dimension α = 0.82. Social dimension α = 0.74. Participatory dimension α = 0.71.
    7. Bases for Table 1.2 are as follows:
      Democracy _T_Notes _7 (1)

    8. Mean scores are based on the average response given by all those expressing an opinion. There is obviously a question regarding how reasonable it is to expect people to have thought about and formed meaningful opinions about all of the specific aspects of democracy asked about in the European Social Survey questionnaire. However, although around 5 per cent of respondents did answer “don’t know”, the vast majority of respondents were able to give an answer European Social Survey data showed. 
      Democracy _T_Notes _8

    9. Respondents with no educational qualifications are also less likely to hold an opinion about the requirements of democracy – with levels of “don’t knows” ranging from 9 per cent to 15 per cent across items – as are young people under 25 (7 per cent to 14 per cent “don’t knows”).

    10. Whether people would actually participate in a referendum is another matter. Support for direct democracy in principle is not always matched by high turnout in practice. In the 2011 referendum regarding the electoral system used to elect MPs, for example, turnout was just 42 per cent nationally (www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-referendums/Complete-set-of-provisional-turn-out-figures-for-referendum-now-published). Turnout in the 2012 elections to elect local police commissioners was even lower.

    11. European Social Survey respondents are asked: 

      In politics people sometimes talk of “left” and “right”. Using this card, where would you place yourself on this scale, where 0 means the left and 10 means the right?

      Responses 0 to 4 on the scale are categorised as being on the political left, 5 is categorised as centrist (group not shown in analysis) and responses 6 to 10 are categorised as being on the political right. 

    12. The items were the same as in Table 1.2 with one exception. Respondents were not asked to evaluate whether “… the courts are able to stop the government acting beyond its authority” applies in Britain. This item is not therefore included in any subsequent analysis.

    13. The full question wording was:

      Now some questions about the same topics, but this time about how you think democracy is working in Britain today. Again, there are no right or wrong answers, so please just tell me what you think 

    14. Bases for Table 1.6 are as follows:
      Democracy _T_Notes _14

    15. Responses on the importance and evaluation scales were rescaled to be between 0 and 1 rather than 0 and 10. The democratic deficit measure for each item, y, was then calculated as follows: (Importance of y (0 to 1) – Evaluation of whether y applies in Britain (0 to 1)) x Importance (0–1).

    16. Bases for Table 1.7 are as follows:

      Democracy _T_Notes _16

    17. European Social Survey data collected in 2010/11 as part of a module of questions on Trust in Justice provide further insights on this topic (Jackson et al., 2010). As many as 50 per cent of people in the UK think that a poor person is more likely than a rich person to be found guilty of an identical crime they did not commit while 30 per cent of respondents feel that someone of a different race or ethnic group from the majority would be more likely to be found guilty. (European Social Survey Round 5 Data (2010). Data file edition 3.0.)

    18. The average deficit on the social democracy dimension was -0.35 among those placing themselves on the left of the political spectrum, -0.25 among those in the centre and -0.20 among those on the right. 

  • Related links