Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-11T03:06:25.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can't get no satisfaction with the Westminster model? Winners, losers and the effects of consensual and direct democratic institutions on satisfaction with democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Julian Bernauer  and
Adrian Vatter
Julian Bernauer*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics and Management, University of Konstanz, Germany
Adrian Vatter
Affiliation:
Institute for Political Science, University of Berne, Switzerland
*
Address for correspondence: Julian Bernauer, Department of Politics and Management, University of Konstanz, PO Box D85, 78457 Konstanz, Germany. Fax: +497531884200; E‐mail: julian.bernauer@uni‐konstanz.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Are citizens in consensus democracies with developed direct democratic institutions more satisfied with their political system than those in majoritarian democracies? In this article, individual‐level data from the second wave of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems and an updated version of Lijphart's multivariate measure of consensus and majoritarian democracy covering 24 countries are used to investigate this question. The findings from logistic multilevel models indicate that consensual cabinet types and direct democratic institutions are associated with higher levels of citizens' satisfaction with democracy. Furthermore, consensus democracy in these institutions closes the gap in satisfaction with democracy between losers and winners of elections by both comforting losers and reducing the satisfaction of winners. Simultaneously, consensus democracy in terms of electoral rules, the executive–legislative power balance, interest groups and the party system reduces the satisfaction of election winners, but does not enhance that of losers.

Keywords

consensus democracydirect democracysatisfaction with democracymultilevel modelingwinners and losers

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of Political Research , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , June 2012 , pp. 435 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 The Author(s). European Journal of Political Research © 2011 European Consortium for Political Research

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

Aarts, K. & Thomassen, J. (2008). Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter? Electoral Studies 27(1): 5–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C.J. & Guillory, C.A. (1997). Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross‐national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review 91(1): 66–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C.J. & Singer, M.M. (2008). The sensitive left and the impervious right: Multilevel models and the politics of inequality, ideology and legitimacy in Europe. Comparative Political Studies 41(4/5): 564–599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armingeon, K. & Careja, R. (2004). Comparative Data Set for 28 Post‐Communist Countries, 1989–2004. Berne: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne. Google Scholar
Armingeon, K. et al. (2006). Comparative Political Data Set, 1960–2004 (updated). Berne: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne. Google Scholar
Berggren, H.M. et al. (2004). Satisfied? Institutional determinants of citizen evaluations of democracy. Politics & Policy 32(1): 72–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A. & Bodet, M.A. (2006). Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policy makers? Comparative Political Studies 39(10): 1243–1262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnet, I. & Frey, B.S. (1999). Social distance and other‐regarding behavior in dictator games: Comment. American Economic Review 89(1): 335–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, S. & Donovan, T. (2002). Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen influence on government. British Journal of Political Science 32(2): 371–390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambor, T., Clark, W.R. & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis 14(1): 63–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryk, A.S. & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
Crepaz, M. (1996). Consensus versus majoritarian democracy: Political institutions and their impact on macroeconomic performance and industrial disputes. Comparative Political Studies 29(1): 4–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cukierman, A. (1992). Central bank strategy, credibility and independence: Theory and evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Cukierman, A., Miller, G.P. & Neyapti, B. (2002). Bank reform, liberalization and inflation in transition economies: An international perspective. Journal of Monetary Economics 49(2): 237–264. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, R.J. & Wattenberg, M.P. (eds) (2000). Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J., Bürklin, W. & Drummond, A. (2001). Public opinion and direct democracy. Journal of Democracy 12: 141–153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, T. & Karp, J. (2006). Popular support for direct democracy. Party Politics 12(5): 671–688. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driffill, J. (2006). The centralization of wage bargaining revisited: What have we learnt? Journal of Common Market Studies 44(4): 731–756. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, D. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall. Google Scholar
Eder, C. (2010). Direkte Demokratie auf subnationaler Ebene. Baden‐Baden: Nomos. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinders, M. (2005). Majoritarian democracy in Britain: New Labour and the Constitution. West European Politics 28(1): 61–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freitag, M. & Vatter, A. (2004). Political institutions and the wealth of regions. European Urban and Regional Studies 11(4): 291–301. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, B.S. (1994). Direct democracy: Politico‐economic lessons from Swiss experience. American Economic Review 84(2): 338–342. Google Scholar
Frey, B.S. & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, economy and institutions. Economic Journal 110: 918–938. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A. & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Golder, M. & Stramski, J. (2010). Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 94–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hank, K. (2003). Eine Mehrebenenanalyse regionaler Einflüsse auf die Familiengründung westdeutscher Frauen in den Jahren 1984 bis 1999. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 55(1): 79–98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, S. (2004). Occurrence and policy consequences of referendums: A theoretical model and empirical evidence. Journal of Theoretical Politics 16(3): 321–356. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, S. & Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players and referendums around the world. Journal of Theoretical Politics 14(4): 465–516. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ismayr, W. (ed.) (2004). Die politischen Systeme Osteuropas. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kedar, O. & Shively, W.P. (2005). Introduction: Special issue on multilevel modeling for large clusters. Political Analysis 13(4): 297–300. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, H.‐D. (1999). Mapping political support in the 1990s: A global analysis. In Norris, P. (ed.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Kraatz, S. & Von Steinsdorff, S. (eds) (2002). Parlamente und Systemtransformation im postsozialistischen Europa. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurian, G.T. (ed.) (1997). World encyclopedia of parliaments and legislatures. New York: Congressional Quarterly Press. Google Scholar
Laakso, M. & Taagepera, R. (1979). ‘Effective’ number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12(1): 3–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty‐six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
Linde, J. & Ekman, J. (2003). Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research 42(3): 391–408. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, W. (2010). Swiss democracy: Possible solutions to conflict in multicultural societies, 3rd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, S.J. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
Lundell, K. & Karvonen, L. (2003). A comparative data set on political institutions. Åbo: Department of Political Science, Åbo Akademi. Google Scholar
McAllister, I. (2005). Accountability, representation and satisfaction with democracy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17(3): 371–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidhart, L. (1970). Plebiszit und pluralitäre Demokratie. Eine Analyse der Funktion des schweizerischen Gesetzesreferendums. Bern: Francke. Google Scholar
Norris, P. (1999). Institutional explanations for political support. In Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P. (2004). Electoral engineering: Voting rules and political behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, E.C., Hua, W. & Ai, C. (2004). Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. Stata Joumal 4(2): 154–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, P. & Olson, D.M. (eds) (2007). Post‐communist and post‐Soviet legislatures: Beyond transition. Special issue of the Journal of Legislative Studies 13(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2004). Employment outlook. Paris: OECD. Google Scholar
Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations: Economic growth, stagflation and social rigidities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
Powell, G.B. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
Rabe‐Hesketh, S. & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press. Google Scholar
Roberts, A. (2006). What kind of democracy is emerging in Eastern Europe? Post Soviet Affairs 22(1): 37–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, W.S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review 15(3): 351–357. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, R., Mishler, W. & Haerpfer, C. (1998). Democracy and its alternatives. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadeh, T. (2005). Who can adjust to the euro? World Economy 28(11): 1651–1678. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadeh, T. (2006). Sustaining European monetary union: Confronting the cost of diversity. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, W. (2003). Arbeitsbeziehungen in Mittelosteuropa – die Bedeutung der Tarifpolitik. WSI-Mitteilungen 56(1): 51–59. Google Scholar
Siaroff, A. (2003). Varieties of parliamentarianism in the advanced industrial democracies. International Political Science Review 24(4): 445–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snijders, T.A.B. & Bosker, R.J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage. Google Scholar
Steenbergen, M.R. & Jones, B.S. (2002). Modeling Multilevel Data Structures. American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 218–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stutzer, A. & Frey, B.S. (2000). Stärkere Volksrechte – Zufriedenere Bürger: Eine mikroökonometrische Untersuchung für die Schweiz. Swiss Political Science Review 6(3): 1–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatter, A. (2000). Consensus and direct democracy: Conceptual and empirical linkages. European Journal of Political Research 38(1): 171–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatter, A. (2005). Bicameralism and policy performance: The effects of cameral structure in comparative perspective. Journal of Legislative Studies 11(2): 194–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatter, A. (2009). Lijphart expanded: Three dimensions of democracy in advanced OECD countries? European Political Science Review 1(1): 125–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatter, A. & Bernauer, J. (2009). The missing dimension of democracy: Institutional patterns in 25 EU Member States between 1997 and 2006. European Union Politics 10(3): 335–359. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatter, A. & Bernauer, J. (2010). Consensus democracy indicators in 26 advanced democracies: Political data set, 1997–2006. Berne/Konstanz: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne/Department of Politics and Management, University of Konstanz. Google Scholar
Wagner, A.F., Schneider, F. & Halla, M. (2009). The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe: A panel analysis. European Journal of Political Economy 25(1): 30–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J.M. & Krieckhaus, J. (2006). Does national context influence democratic satisfaction? A multi‐level analysis. Political Research Quarterly 59(4): 569–578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar