LIST OF PANELS

Very few studies have focused on party-electorate policy representation and research has only sporadically focused on analysing the relationship between the political preferences of voters and, e.g., party manifestoes or governments’ public policies. However, the analysis of the policy agenda-setting and agenda-making channels, specifically party manifestoes and the legislation produced by governments, but also other less direct channels of policy commitment such as prime-minister speeches, party leader speeches, oral questions in plenary meetings, etc., are also means of addressing this methodological requirement. As this methodological option involves the analysis of governments’ proposed or adopted policies, it offers a way of validating the findings of other studies using different (more conventional) methodologies. In this context, we also intend to include a seldom used factor in this kind of studies: the economic crisis. Especially among Southern European countries, the recent intervention programmes pushed governments to implement a series of severe austerity measures. The overall outcome has been a sharp drop in the standards of living. To what extent have the economic crisis and the subsequent austerity measures forced upon several European countries affected the way governments built their policy agenda? And regarding the changes in governments’ policy decisions? And to what extent has the crisis affected the correspondence between the positions of citizens and representatives? Is the responsiveness of governments to public preferences unmediated or is it filtered through media agenda-setting processes? In general, are governments more responsive to public preferences or is the linkage between policy makers and the media more important? Having in mind the likely relationship between economic conditions and democratic performance and taking advantage of the emergence of the crisis, we would like to explore the general relationship between governments policy agenda (as well as other policy agenda-setting and agenda-making channels) and the public in matters of substantive policy issues and decisions.

Policy representation is generally considered to be an indicator of good democratic government. In this field, research has tended to make a comparative analysis of the level of representativeness usually using measures of congruence (Miller et al., 1999, Powell, 2000; Valen and Narud, 2007).Very few of these studies have focused on party-electorate policy representation (Dalton, 1985; Thomassen, 1994), and research has only sporadically focused on analysing the relationship between the political preferences of voters and, for example, party manifestoes (agenda-setting) or governments’ implementation of public policies (agenda-making). However, the results of that research can be misleading if its findings are extrapolated to the broader field of policy responsiveness, since they deal with voters and MPs' policy preferences, and not specifically with government policy decisions. The analysis of the policy agenda-setting and agenda-making channels, specifically party manifestoes and the legislation produced by governments, but also other less direct channels of policy commitment such as prime-minister speeches, party leader speeches, oral questions in plenary meetings, etc., are also means of addressing this methodological requirement. Indeed, those are excellent means of measuring political representation and even responsiveness because the operationalisation of these concepts is potentially more rigorous and thus provide more valid measure of effective policy representation or responsiveness. Moreover, as this methodological option involves the analysis of governments’ proposed or adopted policies, it offers a way of validating the findings of other studies using different (more conventional) methodologies. In this vein several new methodological approaches have been tested (eg. Bonafont and Palau, 2011). In this context, and aiming at bringing new methodological insights over the study of policy representation and of policy responsiveness, we also intend to include a seldom used factor in this kind of studies: the economic crisis and underlying austerity measures. Especially among Southern European countries, the recent intervention programmes pushed governments to implement a series of severe austerity measures, creating a downward spiral of recession. The overall outcome has been a sharp drop in the standards of living. Considering this scenario of crisis in Europe, we are interested in contributing to the understanding of the dynamics of public preferences as well as governments’ decisions, notably by taking into account this new context of political tensions and transformations. To what extent have the economic crisis and the subsequent austerity measures forced upon several European countries affected the way governments built their policy agenda? And regarding the changes in governments’ policy decisions? And to what extent has the crisis affected the correspondence between the positions of citizens and representatives? Is the responsiveness of governments to public preferences unmediated or is it filtered through media agenda-setting processes? In general, are governments more responsive to public preferences or is the linkage between policy makers and the media more important? Having in mind the likely relationship between economic conditions and democratic performance and taking advantage of the economic situation caused by the emergence of the crisis, we would like to generally explore in this panel the relationship between governments policy agenda (as well as other policy agenda-setting and agenda-making channels) and the public in matters of substantive policy issues and decisions.