The importance of input and output legitimacy in democratic governance: Evidence from a population-based survey experiment in four West European countries

The study of subjective democratic legitimacy from a citizens’ perspective has become an important strand of research in political science. Echoing the well-known distinction between ‘input-oriented’ and ‘output-oriented’ legitimacy, the scientific debate on this topic has coined two opposed views. Some scholars find that citizens have a strong and intrinsic preference for meaningful participation in collective decision making. But others argue, to the contrary, that citizens prefer ‘stealth democracy’ because they care mainly about the substance of decisions, but much less about the procedures leading to them. In this article, citizens’ preferences regarding democratic governance are explored, focusing on their evaluations of a public policy according to criteria related to various legitimacy dimensions, as well as on the (tense) relationship among them. Data from a population-based conjoint experiment conducted in eight metropolitan areas in France, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom is used. By analysing 5,000 respondents’ preferences for different governance arrangements, which were randomly varied with respect to their input, throughput and output quality as well as their scope of authority, light is shed on the relative importance of different aspects of democratic governance. It is found, first, that output evaluations are the most important driver for citizens’ choice of a governance arrangement; second, consistent positive effects of criteria of input and throughput legitimacy that operate largely independent of output evaluations can be discerned; and third, democratic input, but not democratic throughput, is considered somewhat more important when a governance body holds a high level of formal authority. These findings run counter to a central tenet of the ‘stealth democracy’ argument. While they indeed suggest that political actors and institutions can gain legitimacy primarily through the provision of ‘good output’, citizens’ demand for input and throughput do not seem to be conditioned by the quality of output as advocates of stealth democratic theory suggest. Democratic input and throughput remain important secondary features of democratic governance.     

ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF PAST TO FUTURE PARTICIPATION IN DELINQUENCY

Among the best documented empirical regularities in criminology is the positive association between past and future delinquency and criminality. In this paper, we examine alternative interpretations of this association. One is that prior participation has a genuine behavioral impact on the individual. Prior participation may, for example, reduce inhibitions against engaging in delinquent activity. Such an effect is termed state dependence. A second explanation is that individuals differ in unmeasured delinquent propensity and this unmeasured propensity is persistent over time. This second explanation is a consequence of population heterogeneity. Using a three-wave panel data set, we attempt to distinguish these two interpretations of the positive association between past and future delinquency. Our results suggest that the positive association is principally due to a state-dependent influence. Theoretical implications and directions for future research are also discussed.     

A THEORY OF HOMICIDAL BEHAVIOR AMONG WOMEN*

This theory explains the homicidal behavior of women in a variety of settings. Structural, social, and cultural conditions of modern societies generate strain for all women, which produces negative affect. Women tend to internalize negative affect as guilt and hurt rather than externalize it as anger directed at a target. This results in a situation analogous to overcontrolled personality, and results in low overall rates of deviance punctuated by occasional instances of extreme violence. The conditions found in long-term abusive relationships and pre- or post-partum environments are more likely to produce this result, but the theory is not limited to explaining female homicide in these settings.     

IS THE TREATY OF MAASTRICHT AN ADEQUATE‘CONSTITUTION’FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION?

This article explores the likely impact of the Treaty of Maastricht on the institutional balance of the European Community and the new European Union. It places particular emphasis on the impact of the Treaty on the role of the European Court of Justice, an institution which has been generally ignored by political scientists. However, it does not accept the received wisdom of legal scholars concerning the Court, which suggests that the Court, acting on its own has saved the Community from self-destruction. Instead, the analysis presented here places the Court in a political context. On the basis of this understanding, the potential of the Treaty of Maastricht to unravel some of the existing structure of the European Community is drawn out.     

PERSONAL CAPITAL AND SOCIAL CONTROL: THE DETERRENCE IMPLICATIONS OF A THEORY OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN CRIMINAL OFFENDING*

A large and growing literature links stable individual differences established early in life to deviant behavior through the life course. This literature challenges basic premises of modern sociological and economic theories of deviance that emphasize explanatory factors that are more proximate in time and external to the individual. In this paper we present and test a theory designed to link rational choice and social control theories with two leading examples of theories that emphasize stable individual differences (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985; Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). Based on appeals to the economic theory of investment, we argue that individuals who are more present oriented and self-centered invest less in social bonds and therefore are less deterred from committing crime by the possibility of damage to such bonds. Thus, our theory, which builds from key constructs of the Gottfredson-Hir-schi and Wilson-Herrnstein theories, departs from those theories with the contention that social control does matter.     

The survival and termination of party mergers in Europe

Why do constituent parties that participated in a party merger that was intended to be permanent decide to leave the merger to re‐enter party competition separately? To address this question, merger termination is conceptualised in this article as an instance of new party formation, coalition termination and institutionalisation failure. Building on this conceptualisation, three sets of factors are presented that account for which mergers are likely to be terminated by constituent parties and which are not. To test these three sets of hypotheses, a mixed‐methods design is used. First, survival analysis is applied to a new dataset on the performance of mergers in 21 European democracies during the postwar period. The findings support hypotheses derived from a conception of merger termination as new party formation: pre‐ and post‐merger legislative performance significantly affect the probability of merger termination. Furthermore, the institutionalisation of constituent parties helps to sustain mergers if the latter already built trust in pre‐merger cooperation, in line with the conception of merger termination as institutionalisation failure. Two theory‐confirming case studies are then analysed: one case of merger survival and the other of termination. These case studies substantiate the working of the significant variables identified in the large‐N analysis that drove the selection of case studies. They also reveal how mediating factors difficult to capture in large‐N designs help to account for why factors that – theoretically – should have complicated the working of the ‘survival case’, and should have been beneficial to the ‘termination case’, did not generate the expected effects.