External Efficacy and Perceived Responsiveness—Similar but Distinct Concepts

Abstract

Representation theory obliges representatives to be responsive toward citizens’ wishes and demands between elections. Responsiveness is crucial because it provides citizens with a mechanism to control representatives beyond Election Day ( Dahl, 1971 ; Mansbridge, 2003 ; Pitkin, 1967 ; Powell, 2004 ). This article addresses the subjective side of responsiveness processes: the extent to which citizens believe that representatives are indeed sensitive to their wishes and demands. Focusing on both conceptualization and measurement, we examine how survey researchers study responsiveness beliefs. Are current practices adequate, or is there room for improvement? Traditionally, studies on perceived responsiveness (PR) are closely associated with studies on another subjective belief: external efficacy (EE). At the conceptual level, the one is often defined in terms of the other (see Acock & Clarke, 1990 ; Aish & Jöreskog, 1990 ; Chamberlain, 2012 ; Clarke, Kornberg & Scotto, 2010 ; Craig, Martinez, Gainous, & Kane, 2006 ; Craig, Niemi & Silver, 1990 ; Hayes & Bean, 1993 ; Niemi, Craig & Mattei, 1991 ). At the operational level, empirical indicators are typically derived from the same set of survey questions developed in the 1950s to capture EE (e.g., Arzheimer, 2008 ; Miller & Listhaug, 1990 ).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 81 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.