This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dyck, J. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Initiated Distrust

Direct Democracy and Trust in Government

University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, jdyck{at}buffalo.edu

An abundance of recent research has suggested that direct democracy institutions, such as the initiative and referendum, craft an environment ripe for encouraging better democratic citizenship. High and frequent exposure to ballot measures has been shown to increase the awareness, efficacy, political participation, and even the general level of happiness of citizens. In contrast to these studies, I develop and test a theory that the use of ballot initiatives undermines the ability of government to prove themselves trustworthy. Using data from two surveys, I demonstrate that ballot initiatives in the American states do indeed create an environment that encourages citizens to distrust their government. The findings have implications in assessing the positive externalities to direct legislation as well as in understanding policy choice made in these elections.

Key Words: political trust • direct democracy • ballot initiatives and referendums • state politics • political participation

References

• Baldassare, M., & Katz, C. (2007). The coming age of direct democracy: California's recall and beyond. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Besley, T., & Coate, S. (n.d.). Issue unbundling via citizens' initiative. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved April 6, 2006, from http://econ.lse.ac.uk/staff/tbesley/papers/initiative.pdf
• Boehmke, F.J., & Bowen, D. (2008, August). Direct democracy and individual interest group membership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
• Boehmke, F.J., & Patty, J.W. (2007). The selection of policies for ballot initiatives: What voters can learn from legislative inaction. Economics and Politics, 19, 97-121.[CrossRef]
• Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices: Opinion, voting and direct democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2002). Democracy, institutions, and attitudes about citizen influence on government. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 371-390.[Web of Science]
• Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2004). Measuring the effect of direct democracy on state policy: Not all initiatives are created equal. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 2, 345-363.
• Branton, R.P. (2003). Examining individual level voting behavior on state ballot propositions. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 367-377.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Campbell, J.C. (1986). Presidential coattails and midterm losses in state legislative elections. American Political Science Review, 80, 45-63.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Citrin, J. (1974). Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. American Political Science Review, 68, 973-988.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Citrin, J. (1996). Who's the boss? Direct democracy and popular control of government. In S. C. Craig (Ed.), Broken contract? Changing relationship between Americans and their government. Boulder, CO: Westview.
• Craig, S.C., Kreppel, A., & Kane, J.G. (2001). Public opinion and support for direct democracy: A grassroots perspective. In M. Mendelsohn & A. Parkin (Eds.), Referendum democracy: Citizens, elites, and deliberation in referendum campaigns (pp. 25-46). New York: Palgrave.
• Craig, S.C., Niemi, R.G., & Silver, G.E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289-314.[CrossRef]
• Cronin, T. (1989). Direct democracy: The politics of initiative, referendum and recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Dyck, J.J., & Lascher, E.L., Jr. (in press). Direct democracy and political efficacy reconsidered. Political Behavior.
• Ellis, R. (2002). Democratic delusions: The initiative process in America. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
• Erikson, R.S., Wright, G.C., & McIver, J.P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Frey, B.S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). Happiness and economics: How the economy and institutions affect well-being. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Gamson, W.A. (1968). Power and discontent. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
• Garrett, E. (2005). Hybrid democracy. George Washington Law Review, 73, 1096-1130.[Web of Science]
• Gerber, E.R. (1996). Legislative response to the threat of popular initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 99-128.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Gerber, E.R. (1999). The populist paradox. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Gerber, E.R., Lupia, A., McCubbins, M.D., & Kiewiet, D.R. (2001). Stealing the initiative: How state government responds to direct democracy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.[CrossRef]
• Hetherington, M.J. (2005). Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Hibbing, J.R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (1996). Congress as public enemy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
• Hibbing, J.R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans' beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
• Kaufmann, K.M., & Petrocik, J.R. (1999). The changing politics of American men: Understanding the sources of the gender gap. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 864-887.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Klarner, C. (2004). State partisan balance dataset. Retrieved January 5, 2008, from http://www.ipsr.ku.edu/SPPQ/journal_datasets/klarner.shtml
• Lascher, E.L., Jr., Hagen, M.G., & Rochlin, A. (1996). Gun behind the door? Ballot initiatives, state policies and public opinion. Journal of Politics, 58, 760-775.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Lupia, A. (1992). Busy voters, agenda control, and the power of information. American Political Science Review, 86, 390-403.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63-76.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Magleby, D.B. (1984). Direct legislation: Voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Malhotra, D., & Murninghan, J.K. (2002). The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 534-559.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Matsusaka, J.G. (1995). Fiscal effects of the voter initiative: Evidence from the last 30 years. Journal of Political Economy, 103, 587-623.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Matsusaka, J.G. (2001). Problems with a methodology used to evaluate the voter initiative. Journal of Politics, 63, 1250-1256.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Matsusaka, J.G. (2004). For the many or the few: How the initiative process changes American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14, 91-103.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Mendelsohn, M., & Cutler, F. (2000). The effect of referendums on democratic citizens: Information, politicization, efficacy and tolerance. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 685-701.[Web of Science]
• Nardulli, P.F. (1990). Political subcultures in the American states: An empirical examination of Elazar's formulation. American Politics Quarterly, 18, 287-315.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Rosenstone, S.J., & Hansen, J.M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
• Schlozman, D., & Yohai, I. (2008). How initiatives don't always make citizens: Ballot initiatives in the American states, 1978-2004. Political Behavior, 30, 469-489.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Sharkansky, I. (1969). The utility of Elazar's political culture: A research note. Polity, 2, 66-83.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Sitkin, S.B., & Roth, N.L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic "remedies" for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4, 367-392.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Smith, D.A. (1998). Tax crusaders and the politics of direct democracy. New York: Routledge.
• Smith, D.A., & Fridkin, D. (2008). Delegating direct democracy: Interparty legislative competition and the adoption of the initiative in the American states. American Political Science Review, 102, 333-350.
• Smith, D.A., & Tolbert, C.J. (2001). The initiative to party: Partisanship and ballot initiatives in California. Party Politics, 7, 739-757.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Smith, D.A., & Tolbert, C.J. (2004). Educated by initiative: The effects of direct democracy on citizens and political organizations in the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Smith, M. (2001). The contingent effects of ballot initiatives and candidate races on turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 700-706.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Smith, M. (2002). Ballot initiatives and the democratic citizen. Journal of Politics, 64, 892-903.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Squire, P. (2007). Measuring state legislative professionalism: The squire index revisited. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 7, 211-227.
• Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35-67.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Waters, M. D. (Ed.). (2003). Initiative and referendum almanac. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
• Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579-616.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

This version was published on July 1, 2009

American Politics Research, Vol. 37, No. 4, 539-568 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X08330635


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dyck, J. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?