Search results

AbstractA voluminous literature documents that citizens' perceptions of democracy are shaped by electoral victories and defeats, but what reasoning do citizens use to evaluate parties as winners or losers? Drawing on research on partisan-motivated reasoning, I propose an own-party bias in winner–loser evaluations according to which voters evaluate the electoral fate of their party more favourably than that of other parties. Data gathered in the aftermath of the Danish parliamentary election in 2015 support this expectation. Citizens are more inclined to interpret the election outcome as successful for their preferred party, regardless of the actual election result. This is more pronounced the stronger their partisan attachment and among the less politically knowledgeable, who also assign less importance to objective indicators of electoral success. The findings have implications for our understanding of electoral winners and losers and of how electoral results shape party support and polarization.

Prospect theory has been widely acknowledged in the social sciences as a frame for understanding how people deal with uncertainty. Yet, little is known about whether key expectations from prospect theory also hold in a public service setting. In this article, I draw on prospect theory to examine under what conditions citizens prefer uncertain – but potentially advantageous – reforms to reforms with more certain outcomes. A population‐based survey experiment with the participation of 1,395 Danish citizens and two consecutive experiments with 1,680 US MTurkers produced a consistent pattern across contexts: citizens to a large extent prefer certain to risky reforms and are more willing to take risks if reforms are associated with gains rather than losses. The latter finding is in opposition to expectations and suggests that the particularities of the public sector should be taken into account when applying insights from prospect theory to this sector.

This article examines two traditional and four new explanations of committee composition. Using survey data on 541 Danish local politicians' pre‐election committee seat preferences and their actual post‐election committee seats, it is found that politicians are more likely to have their committee seat preferences fulfilled the less their preferences for the committees' policy domains differ from those of their fellow party members and the more specialised they are within the jurisdiction area of their preferred committee. Thus, the ex ante control of committee members sometimes observed in the American context is also relevant in the very different institutional setting of Danish local government. Moreover, a number of other explanations are found to be of equal relevance. In particular, individual‐level popular support is important to politicians' committee seat preference fulfilment and seats are distributed among party members in order to assure that everybody, at least to some extent, obtains a post that they find attractive. The findings thus suggest that ex ante control of committee members is but one of many concerns of parties. Accordingly, scholars should broaden their attention to other aspects of committee seat allocation, such as fair share norms and the popular support of politicians.

The effects of different organizational structures are often assumed, expected or promised but seldom well documented through systematic studies (Christensen 2007, p. 144). Using evidence from a natural experiment including organizational data from 65 Danish municipalities and survey responses from 1014 politicians and 403 administrators, the article analyses whether and how two different organizational leadership models affect the interaction between politicians and administrators. The analyses show the expected differences in the patterns of interaction between politicians and administrators when comparing municipalities using a traditional sector-based model and municipalities using a more recent executive board approach. Compared to the sector-based model, the new model has the intended effects of cutting ties between politicians sitting on specialized committees and administrative leaders of single service departments, and strengthening the relations between the political and administrative leadership. Adapted from the source document.

Theories on committee power assert that legislators self‐select to committees and therefore have preferences regarding the policy issues under the committees' jurisdictions that differ from the preferences of noncommittee members. I argue that preference outliers may be shaped both by processes of self‐selection and by endogenous processes within committees. Contrary to previous examinations of committee member preferences, the study utilizes a dynamic approach to examine the development of preferences over time in order to separate self‐selection from endogenous processes. Analyzing the development in the spending preferences of 859 Danish local politicians over three different election periods, I find that politicians increasingly prefer spending on their committees' jurisdictions over time, but their preferences do not change to the same extent on policy issues beyond their committees' jurisdictions. The findings point to the importance of endogenous processes in committees. Hence, committees may be outliers for very different reasons than those proposed by mainstream theory.

The article explores organizational structures in public organizations that are the results of amalgamations of two or more public organizations. Focusing on the Danish Local Government Reform implemented in 2007, the main questions are whether the new municipalities have decided to organize themselves differently than their predecessors, and whether the interests of centrally placed actors affect such a decision. Data on the political and administrative organization of all Danish municipalities in 2005 and 2007 show that the number of organizational units grew considerably more in the 66 new municipalities than it did in the 32 municipalities whose territory was not changed because of the reform. The analyses show that the increased number of organizational units can in part be explained by new municipal tasks and increased workload due to the new structural conditions. An important part of the increase, however, was caused neither by task related, nor by structural changes. Alternatively, the increase may be explained by political norms stating that all relevant interests should be given a top post in the new organizations.

The article explores organizational structures in public organizations that are the results of amalgamations of two or more public organizations. Focusing on the Danish Local Government Reform implemented in 2007, the main questions are whether the new municipalities have decided to organize themselves differently than their predecessors, and whether the interests of centrally placed actors affect such a decision. Data on the political and administrative organization of all Danish municipalities in 2005 and 2007 show that the number of organizational units grew considerably more in the 66 new municipalities than it did in the 32 municipalities whose territory was not changed because of the reform. The analyses show that the increased number of organizational units can in part be explained by new municipal tasks and increased workload due to the new structural conditions. An important part of the increase, however, was caused neither by task related, nor by structural changes. Alternatively, the increase may be explained by political norms stating that all relevant interests should be given a top post in the new organizations. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract
Based on a systematic review of 119 articles and working papers, we provide an overview of how administrative burdens in citizen–state interactions have been studied since the inception of the research agenda in 2012. We develop a new and comprehensive model of how key concepts in the framework are related, assess the evidence of the causal relationships proposed by the model, and discuss where more evidence is needed. Empirical research supports conventional claims that burdens are consequential, distributive, and constructed. However, the literature has moved further by (1) demonstrating that factors such as frontline service delivery and government communication influence experiences of burdens; (2) highlighting how factors beyond ideology influence constructions of burdens; (3) introducing the burden tolerance concept; (4) illustrating that experiences of burden influence policymakers' and members of the publics' burden tolerance. Based on the review, we propose an agenda for future administrative burden research. We call for studies linking experiences of burden to outcomes such as democratic behavior and take-up, and for studies connecting policymakers' burden tolerance to actual state actions. Moreover, we argue that future studies should use qualitative methods to further explore the nature of burdens from the perspective of citizens, rely on experimental methods to establish causal links between state actions and experiences of burden, and compare burdens across contexts. Further, empirical studies should examine the tradeoffs between legitimacy and experiences of burden, and how actors outside the citizen–state interaction may influence experiences of administrative burden.

Administrative burdens in citizen-state interactions are increasingly gaining attention in both research and practice. However, being a relatively young research field, there is still considerable disagreement about how to conceptualize and measure administrative burdens. In particular, burdens are sometimes equated with what the state does, and other times with what target group members experience. We argue that such disagreement is a barrier for further theoretical development and has removed focus from studying the process in which state actions are converted into individual outcomes. We provide advice on how to conceptually bridge the gap between different conceptualizations of administrative burden and lay out a research agenda covering the next important theoretical and empirical steps based on such a shared understanding. We propose that developing the conceptual and empirical foundation of administrative burden research will help asking new and important research questions and building cumulative knowledge. To illustrate these points, we present a series of new research questions for future research to engage with.

AbstractThe provision of public services is a key responsibility of elected politicians. Research suggests that citizens' satisfaction evaluations of public services are incomplete representations of service quality and performance. However, little attention has been given to the political nature of service evaluations. Based on the theory of (partisan) motivated reasoning and the literature on responsibility attribution, we argue that citizens provide more favorable evaluations of municipal services when the responsibility for these services is vested in political principals with matching partisanship. Drawing on original data from a two-wave pre-post panel survey of Danish voters in the 2017 municipal elections, we employ a difference-in-differences estimator to identify the effect of a partisan match between voters and elected municipal leaders on citizen satisfaction with municipal services. We furthermore nest a survey experiment in the panel survey to test whether partisan bias in citizen satisfaction emerges when the line of functional responsibility between political principals and public services is clear and not dispersed across multiple actors. Our findings provide support for the hypothesis of partisan bias in satisfaction evaluations. We further demonstrate the importance of clarity of responsibility; partisan bias seems to come into being when the functional responsibility of municipal leaders for public services is clear and not dispersed across multiple actors, pointing toward a possible mechanism of partisan bias in citizen satisfaction.