Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-w5vf4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-29T12:48:22.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evolution of public policy attitudes: comparing the mechanisms of policy support across the stages of a policy cycle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2019

Sverker C. Jagers Open the ORCID record for Sverker C. Jagers [Opens in a new window] ,
Simon Matti Open the ORCID record for Simon Matti [Opens in a new window]  and
Katarina Nordblom
Sverker C. Jagers
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Centre for Collective Action Research, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Simon Matti*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Centre for Collective Action Research, University of Gothenburg, Sweden Political Science Unit, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden
Katarina Nordblom
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
*
*Corresponding author. Email: simon.matti@ltu.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We analyse the importance of legitimacy on public policy support by comparing how drivers of public policy attitudes evolve across the policy process consisting of the input (the processes forgoing acquisition of power and the procedures permeating political decisionmaking), throughput (the inclusion of and interactions between actors in a governance system) and output (the substantive consequences of those decisions) stages. Using unique panel data through three phases of the implementation of a congestion tax in the Swedish city of Gothenburg, we find that legitimacy is indeed important in explaining policy support. Moreover, we find a lingering effect where support in one phase depends on legitimacy both in the present and in previous phases. Hence, our study takes us one step further on the road to understand the complicated dynamic mechanisms behind the interactions between policymaking, policy support, and the legitimacy and approval of politicians and political processes.

Keywords

halo effectinputlegitimacyoutputpolicythroughput

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 428 - 448
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Beetham, D (1991) The Legitimation of Power. London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, A (2002) Political Legitimacy and Democracy. Ethics 112(4): 689–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citrin, J Muste, C (1999) Trust in Government. In Wrightsman LS, Shaver PR and Robinson JP (eds.), Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 465–532.Google Scholar
Doberstein, C Millar, H (2015) Balancing a House of Cards: Throughput Legitimacy in Canadian Governance Networks. Canadian Journal of Political Science 47(2): 259–280.Google Scholar
Easton, D (1953) The Political System. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Esaiasson, P, Giljam, M Persson, M (2017) Responsiveness Beyond Policy Satisfaction: Does it Matter to Citizens?. Comparative Political Studies 50(6): 739–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esaiasson, P Wlezien, C (2017) Advances in the Study of Democratic Responsiveness: An Introduction. Comparative Political Studies 50(6): 699–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finger, M Finon, D (2011) From ‘Service Public’ to Universal Service. In Finger M and Künneke Rolf W (eds.), International Handbook on the Liberalization of Infrastructures. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 54–69.Google Scholar
Føllesdal, A Hix, S (2006) Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies 44(3): 533–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foyle, DC (2004) Leading the Public to War? The Influence of American Public Opinion on the Bush Administration’s Decision to Go to War in Iraq. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 16, 269–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R (2012) Reverb: Policy Making in Wave Form. Environment and Planning A 44(1): 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, BS (1997) Not Just For the Money. An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Giuliano, G (1992) An Assessment of the Political Acceptability of Congestion Pricing. Transportation 19(4): 335–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gormley, WT (2007) Public Policy Analysis: Ideas and Impacts. Annual Review of Political Science 10, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gul, F (1991) A Theory of Disappointment Aversion. Econometrica 59(3): 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagemann, S, Hobolt, SB Wratil, C (2017) Government Responsiveness in the European Union: Evidence From Council Voting. Comparative Political Studies 50(6): 850–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, PM McGinty, P (1997) Policy as the Transformation of Intentions: Producing Program from Statue. The Sociological Quarterly 38(3): 439–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, MJ (2005) Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism. Princeton, N. J. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hodson, D Maher, I (2002) Economic and Monetary Union: Balancing Credibility and Legitimacy in an Asymmetric Policy-Mix. Journal of European Public Policy 9(3): 391–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaensirisak, S, Wardman, M May, AD (2005) Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 39, 127–153.Google Scholar
Jagers, SC Hammar, H (2009) Environmental Taxation for Good and for Bad: The Efficiency and Legitimacy of Sweden’s Carbon Tax. Environmental Politics 18(2): 218–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, VO Jr (1961) Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Kingdon, JW (1995) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, 2nd edition. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Lipset, SM (1981) Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Liu, Z, Meng, Q Wang, S (2013) Speed-Based Toll Design for Cordon-Based Congestion Pricing Scheme. Transportation Research Part C 31, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubell, MN, Zahran, S Vedlitz, A (2007) Collective Action and Citizens Responses to Global Warming. Political Behavior 29(3): 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, A (2010) Understanding Policy Success: Rethinking Public Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montpetit, E (2008) Policy Design for Legitimacy: Expert Knowledge, Citizens, Time and Inclusion in United Kingdom’s Biotechnology Sector. Public Administration 86(1): 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naurin, E (2009) Promising Democracy. Parties, Citizens and Election Promises. PhD dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Norris, P (2011) Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odeck, J Bråthen, S (2002) Toll Financing in Norway: The Success, Failures and Perspective for the Future. Transport Policy 9, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Page, BI Shapiro, RY (1983) Effects of Public Opinion on Policy. American Political Science Review 77, 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, GB (2005) Institutional Theory in Political Science: The “New Institutionalism”. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Pierson, P (1993) When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change. World Politics 45(4): 595–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworksi, A, Stokes, SS Manin, B (eds.) (1999) Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinstra, SA, Rietveld, P Verhoef, ET (1999) The Social Support for Policy Measures in Passenger Transport. A Statistical Analysis for the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part D 4, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosset, J, Giger, N Bernauer, J (2017) I the People? Self-Interest and Demand for Government Responsiveness. Comparative Political Studies 50(6): 794–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotaris, L, Danielis, R, Marcucci, E Massiani, J (2010) The Urban Road Pricing Scheme to Curb Pollution in Milan, Italy: Description, Impacts and Preliminary Cost–Benefit Analysis Assessment. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44(5): 359–375.Google Scholar
Rothstein, B (2009) Creating Political Legitimacy. Electoral Democracy Versus Quality of Government. American Behavioural Scientist 53(3): 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schade, J Schlag, B (2003) Acceptability of Urban Transport Pricing Strategies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 6, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, FW (1999) Governing in Europe – Effective and Democratic?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, EE (1935) Politics, Pressures and the Tariff: A Study of Free Private Enterprise in Pressure Politics, as Shown in the 1929–1930 Revision of the Tariff. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Schmidt, VA (2013) Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’. Political Studies 61, 2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, A Ingram, H (1993) Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy. American Political Science Review 87(2): 334–347.Google Scholar
Schneider, S, Nullmeier, F Hurrelmann, A (2007) Exploring the Communicative Dimension of Legitimacy: Text Analytical Approaches. In Hurrelmann A , Schneider S and Steffek J (eds.), Legitimacy in an Age of Global Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 126–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuitema, G, Steg, L Forward, S (2010) Explaining Differences in Acceptability Before and Acceptance After the Implementation of a Congestion Charge in Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A 44, 99–109.Google Scholar
Skocpol, T (1997) Boomerang: Health Care Reform and the Turn Against Government. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Skogstad, G (2003) Legitimacy and/or Policy Effectiveness?: Network Governance and GMO Regulation in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 10(3): 321–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, RS (2001) The Impact of Public Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy Since Vietnam: Constraining the Colossus. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, S Wlezien, C (2010) Degrees of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soss, J (1999) Lessons of Welfare: Policy Design, Political Learning, and Political Action. American Political Science Review 93(2): 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, J (1991) Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, JA (2007) Perspectives on Representation: Asking the Right Questions and Getting the Right Answers. In Dalton RJ and Klingemann H-D (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 850–861.Google Scholar
Stockholmförsöket (2006) Fakta och resultat från Stockholmsförsöket (Facts and Results from the Stockholm Trials: Final Version), 2nd ed., December. Available (in Swedish) at: www.stockholmsforsoket.seGoogle Scholar
Svallfors, S (2010) Policy Feedback, Generational Replacement, and Attitudes to State Intervention: Eastern and Western Germany, 1990–2006. European Political Science Review 2(1): 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teisman, GR (2000) Models for Research Into Decision‐Making Processes: On Phases, Streams and Decision‐Making Rounds. Public Administration 78(4): 937–956.Google Scholar
Transport for London (2004) Impacts Monitoring: Second Annual Report. Available online at: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/impacts-monitoring-report-2.pdf Google Scholar
Transportstyrelsen (2014) Congestion Tax Gothenburg, http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/Global/Vag/Trangselskatt/Information%20på%20engelska.pdf (accessed 22 September 2014).Google Scholar
Transportstyrelsen (2016) Congestion Tax in Stockholm and Gothenburg, http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/en/road/Congestion-taxes-in-Stockholm-and-Goteborg/ (accessed 5 November 2016).Google Scholar
Tretvik, T (2003) Urban Road Pricing in Norway: Public Acceptability and Travel Behaviour. In Schade J, Schlag B (eds.), Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies. Oxford, Elsevier Science, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallner, J (2008) Legitimacy and Public Policy: Seeing Beyond Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Performance. The Policy Studies Journal 36(3): 421–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winslott-Hiselius, L, Brundell-Freij, K, Vagland, A Byström, C (2009) The Development of Public Attitudes Towards the Stockholm Congestion Trial. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 43, 269–282.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C (1995) The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending. American Journal of Political Science 39, 981–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, C (2017) Policy (Mis) Representation and the Cost of Ruling: U.S. Presidential Elections in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Political Studies 50(6): 711–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, C Soroka, S (2012) Political Institutions and the Opinion-Policy Link. West European Politics 35, 1407–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jagers et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Jagers et al. supplementary material(File)
File 42.3 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Jagers et al. dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UCQAVW
Link