Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download reference work entry PDF
Definition
The term satisfaction with democracy (SWD) emerges in relation to the discrepancy between how democracy should work and the way it actually works (Wagner et al., 2006). It is a concept that although it has been widely used, it has always suffered, at the same time, from considerable criticism because the various ways in which it has been used make it difficult to identify relationships between theoretical constructs and to identify relationships among variables. Authors like Clarke, Dutt, and Kornberg (1993) said that the term can be used as a summary indicator.
Description
It appears as an item in the Euro barometer for the first time in 1976 as a four-point scale with the question: are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied with the way democracy works in our country?. The results obtained in relation to the percentage of respondents who reported that they were “very satisfied” or “fairly satisfied” with democracy in a country’s election year allowed the construction of the indicator called “citizen satisfaction”(Ezrow & Georgios, 1976–2003).
Canache, Jeffery and Seligson (2001) distinguished among different views of SWD: as an indicator of support for incumbent authorities (Dalton, 1999; Merkl, 1988); as an indicator of a system support (Anderson & Guillory, 1997; Fuchs, 1993; Fuchs, Guidorossi, & Svensson, 1995; Klingemann, 1999; Weil, 1989); as a summary indicator (Clarke, Dutt, & Kornberg, 1993), or as an acceptable ambiguity (Kaase, 1988) and unacceptable ambiguity (Norris, 1999). This study by Canache et al., developed in 18 nations, intends to provide a straightforward assessment in SWD trying to define what the item measures. The conclusion was that SWD reveals a lack of agreement in what it measures because multiple interpretations are possible regarding individuals, time, or space. For example, as individual levels mean different things, it depends on the level of knowledge about politics people have.
In a research study developed in 1993, in which the unit of analysis was the individuals, Clarke, Dutt and Kornberg found that SWD is correlated with support for the political community, with the regime and incumbent authorities, and with the thought that “SWD provides a useful overall summary measure of satisfaction with the existing democratic political system” (Clarke, Dutt, & Kornberg, 1993, 1003).
Fuchs (1993, p. 242) conducted a research study on the validity of SWD and concluded that it “constitutes a successful validation of the indicator as a measuring instrument for a generalized attitude toward the political system on the legitimacy dimension.” Linde and Ekman (2003, p. 401) claimed that “satisfaction with the way democracy works is not an indicator of system legitimacy per se; rather it is one indicator of support for the performance of a democratic regime.”
Wagner et al. (2006, p. 8) used SWD to know how democracy actually works in practice, but they recognized that although it is problematic to assess the level of legitimacy of democracy using SWD, this indicator is used in the major cross-national public opinion surveys to generalize the support for the democratic system.
It is necessary to distinguish the concepts of democratic legitimacy that is defined as the support for the principles of democracy (Wagner et al., 2006); system support that concerns attitudes regarding the particular variant of democracy that exists within one’s country (Canache et al., 2001, p. 6); and support for democracy as a form of government that concerns democracy at an abstract level (Canache et al., 2001, p. 6).
SWD does not try to capture whether people support the principles of democracy but rather how they judge it to work in practice in their concrete experience (Wagner et al., 2006, p. 8). Anderson and Guillory (1997, p. 70) said that SWD does not refer to democracy as a set of norms, but it refers to the functioning of democracy.
Norris (1999) argued against SWD on two levels, saying that it may mean different things to different persons and that the item is intrinsically value laden. In his study about the support for democracy, he considered five elements: political community, support for democracy as a form of government, regime performance or satisfaction with the way democracy actually functions, regime institutions, and political actors. The variable regime performance or satisfaction with the way democracy actually functions addresses the issue of what citizens think about the way democracy works in practice. There can be important differences between support for democracy as a principle and a view of a real-existing democracy.
Considering the relation between SWD and happiness, one should notice the study of Graham and Pettinato, Stefano (2000) in which the authors explored the demographic determinants of happiness in 17 countries of Latin America as well as the effects of macroeconomic trends and attitudes about the market on happiness, finding that SWD was correlated with higher levels of happiness.
In 2006, Wagner et al. developed a research study in which one of the hypotheses was that more happiness is associated with higher levels of SWD. They began with the assumption that happiness is an important determinant of SWD. The preliminary analysis using VARs suggested that “while happiness has a positive influence on SWD, SWD has virtually no statistically significant influence on happiness” (Wagner et al., 2006, p. 22). This introduced the question about what is more important for regime support: SWD or happiness.
Finally, the research studies developed till now showed that different authors had different opinions about the theoretical implications and consistency of SWD as a significant measure of how satisfied people are with democracy in the country where they live.
References
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, 66–81.
Canache, D., Jeffery, M., & Seligson, M. (2001). Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 506–528.
Clarke, H. D., Dutt, N., & Kornberg, A. (1993). The political economy of attitudes toward polity and society in Western European democracies. Journal of Politics, 55, 998–1021.
Dalton, R. J. (1999). Political Support in advanced industrial democracies. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical citizens. Global support for democratic government (pp. 57–77). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ezrow, L., & Georgios, X. Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings: A cross-national analysis of twelve European party systems, 1976–2003. Forthcoming, Comparative Political Studies. http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/ezrow/publications/Ezrow_Xezonakis_Citizen%20Sat-isfaction%20with%20Democracy%20and%20Parties%27%20Policy%20Offerings.pdf.
Fuchs, D. (1993). Trends of political support. In D. Berg-Schlosser & R. Rytlewski (Eds.), Political cultural in Germany. New York: St. Martin’s.
Fuchs, D., Guidorossi, G., & Svensson, P. (1995). Support for the democratic system. In H.-D. Klingemann & D. Fuchs (Eds.), Citizens and the state (pp. 323–353). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Graham, C., & Pettinato, S. (2000). Happiness, markets, and democracy: Latin America in comparative perspective. Center on Social and Economic Dynamics (Working Paper No. 13 August).
Kaase, M. (1988). Political alienation and protest. In M. Dogan (Ed.), Comparing pluralist democracies: Strains in legitimacy. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Klingemann, H.-D. (1999). Mapping political support in the 1990s: A global analysis. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical citizens. Global support for democratic government (pp. 31–56). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Linde, J., & Ekman, J. (2003). Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 391–408.
Merkl, P. (1988). Comparing legitimacy and values among advanced democratic countries. In M. Dogan (Ed.), Comparing pluralist democracies. Westview: Boulder, CO.
Norris, P. (1999). Introduction: The growth of critical citizens? In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical citizens. Global support for democratic government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wagner, A., & Schneider, F. (2006). Satisfaction with democracy and the enviroment in Western Europe. A Panel Analysis. IZA DP N°1929.
Weil, F. (1989). The sources and structure of legitimation in Western democracies: A consolidated model tested with time-series data in six countries since World War II. American Sociological Review, 54, 682–706.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
Tonon, G. (2014). Democracy, Satisfaction with. In: Michalos, A.C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2564
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2564
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-0752-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-0753-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences