Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the democratic linkage through the lens of governmental polling: a research agenda

  • Review Article
  • Published:
French Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

For the last few decades, liberal democracies have been confronted with new challenges such as low turnout, high electoral volatility, the electoral success of populist movements and growing dissatisfaction with the political system. These challenges have persuaded scholars to develop new insights into the democratic linkage, hence the growing body of works focusing on the link between public opinion and public policies—from responsiveness to persuasion and policy feedback. Examining this literature, government opinion polls appear both as the central apparatus through with public opinion and public policies interact and as mostly a black box. In this article, I aim first to unveil the function and the role attributed by scholars to government opinion polling when investigating the democratic linkage, then to propose a review of the few empirical studies which have attempted to disentangle its use by diverse political authorities and finally to outline a research agenda. I would argue that scrutinizing opinion polling—Who is ordering polls? What kind of apparatus is involved? Which questions are being asked? When? What for? Who is using the results? For what purpose?—would offer us a better understanding of the democratic linkage, as this will reveal political leaders’ lay theories of democracy, how much they are shared and how they evolve over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The practice amongst these groups is less documented. See, however, Alpert et al. (1954) and a few insights in Skocpol (1994) and Herbst (1998).

  2. At least in some fields, see, for example, L. Birch’s PhD on the use of opinion polls when developing anti-tobacco policies (Birch 2010).

  3. Again this practice is not well documented. See, however, an example in Rothmayr and Hardmeier (2002).

  4. Except for the role played by opinion polls in political campaign which is better documented, see Hillygus (2011) for an American review.

  5. From what we know, looking at the American and French cases, only between 5 and 20% of the polls produced by polling institutes are published (Field 1983: 204; Lehingue 2007: 43–44). The proportion of hidden polls commissioned by governmental elites is, however, probably different from one country to another, depending on transparency rules implemented at governmental level.

  6. See, for example, the French Justice’s requirement that Nicolas Sarkozy provide access to the polls his staff commissioned during his presidency, following a claim by Raymond Avrillier. Also a similar Court judgement demanded of Angela Merkel in Germany in 2014 following a claim by Malte Spitz in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (Schnatterer forthcoming).

  7. In some countries, norms are enforced relative to the transparency of the reports that are based on polls financed by public funds. See, for example, such norms in the Canadian case (http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/porr/Pages/porr.aspx). As far as Europe is concerned, all Eurobarometers’ questionnaires, results and reports are available through the Commission’s website after a few months of embargo (http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/general/index/).

  8. See Guinaudeau (2014) for a recent reflexive review of this literature and the debate between Erzow and Hellwig (2014) and other scholars (Schmitt 2016; Potrafke 2017) regarding recent changes.

  9. See Pétry and Collette (2009) for a review and Thomson et al. (2017) and Bouillaud et al. (2017) for recent analysis.

  10. See Wlezien and Soroka (2007) and Shapiro (2011) for a review on American democracy. See Hobolt and Klemmensen (2008), Wlezien & Soroka (2012) and Bowler (2017) for some comparative perspectives.

  11. Some authors use the term congruence as a synonymous (Monroe 1998). Others, however, consider that the term congruence designates both consistence, what they call “majoritarian congruence”, and co-variation, in their terms “co-variate congruence (Shapiro 2011). I therefore prefer not to use the term here in order to clarify the distinction between the two types of studies.

  12. All studies conclude that public opinion plays a role in decision-making but they differ on the importance of such a role.

  13. See Druckman and Lupia (2000) for a review of this literature from the end of the 1990s and Rottinghaus (2010), Druckman and Jacobs (2015) and Edwards (2016) for recent results relative to the American case. Again this literature almost exclusively focuses on the American case and in particular on the strategy of persuasion used by various presidents. For a French example, see president Sarkozy persuasion discourse in defence of nuclear power in Brouard et al. (2013). Note that in the normative literature, the political elite’s will to persuade appears twofold. When political leaders try to convince the general public knowing that they are acting in their best interest and argue that they are informing them, the will to persuade is accepted as being helpful to the good running of democracies. On the other hand, when political leaders try to convince the general public knowing that the decision they have made is not the wisest but has been made either to avoid facing a problem or be re-elected, the will to persuade is denounced as a falsification of the representative’s role [see the distinction made by Canes-Wrone et al. (2001) between true leadership and fake leadership and Disch (2011)].

  14. See Campbell (2012) for a review of this literature.

  15. See, for example, Kumlin and Rothstein (2005) on the Swedish welfare case, Mettler and Stonecash (2008) on the American welfare case and Shore (2014) for a European comparison. Note that if most studies focus on social policies, the effect of other universal policies is also questioned. See, for example, the work by Dupuy and Van Ingelgom (2016) who observe how EU environmental policy enhances support for the EU political system.

  16. See, for example, the work of Mettler (2002) on the GI Bill or the work of Revillard (2017) on the bill-seeking accessibility for handicapped people.

  17. Her interviews with political elites at the constituencies’ level in America led Herbst (1998) to conclude that when trying to grasp public opinion, political elites refer much more to the latter than to the former.

  18. See Blondiaux (1998) in France and the USA, Eisinger (2003, 2008) in the USA, Jacobs (1992) in the USA and the UK and Worcester (1991) in the UK.

  19. Bill Clinton in the USA (Eisinger 2003) and Nicolas Sarkozy in France (Belot 2012) are known to have been particularly keen on commissioning polls unlike G. Bush senior (Hall 2002) or J. Chirac (Seggelke 2007).

  20. To give only one example, L. Johnson suspended his relationship with the polls’ institute he was working with, O. Quayle, when he learned that Quayle communicated about their relationship (Jacobs and Shapiro 1999).

  21. For an overview, see the most important books published on presidential use of opinion polls (Geer 1996; Jacobs and Shapiro 2000; Eisinger 2003; Heith 2004; Rottinghaus 2010; Druckman and Jacobs 2015).

  22. The European Commission has commissioned opinion polls, the Eurobarometers, very regularly since 1973. More than a thousand have been requested since then with a peak in 2009 (69 polls commissioned that year) (Belot et al. 2016).

  23. See, however, Brown (2011) on how political elites resort to different kinds of public opinion when building penal public policies reform in the State of New York.

  24. See, however, Rothmayr and Hardmeier (2002) on the use of five opinion polls at the confederal and local level in the Swiss case, and Birch (2010) on polls commissioned by the Canadian Government’s office responsible for public policies related to tobacco.

  25. See as well some of the parliamentary staff interviewed by Herbst (1998: 48).

  26. This was particularly obvious in R. Reagan’s speeches when he primed economic issues over foreign policy issues.

  27. Scholars tend to consider that this kind of use expanded with the growing commissioning of focus groups (Heith 2000; Heith 2003; Rottinghaus 2008).

  28. Birch (2010) claims that presidential use of public opinion is mainly strategic, whereas public administrations use it in more “conceptual” and “managerial” ways. Her study, however, concerns mainly health policies related to tobacco.

  29. The French government’s information service (SIG) (Ollivier-Yaniv 2000), the German government (Schnatterer forthcoming) or the DG Communication of the European Commission all produce a systematic watch of different polls made public by the media.

  30. See their website: http://www.pewresearch.org/.

  31. The literature offers only a few answers and again only on US presidential polls (Heith 2004; Druckman and Jacobs 2015).

References

  • Aldrin, P. 2010. L’invention de l’opinion publique européenne. Genèse intellectuelle et politique de l’Eurobaromètres (1950–1973). Politix 89: 79–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alpert, H., C. Hawver, F. Cantwell, P. De Vany, and M. Kriesberg. 1954. Congressional Use of Polls: A Symposium. Public Opinion Quarterly 18(2): 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belot, C. 2012. Gouverner par les sondages? Nicolas Sarkozy et l’opinion publique. In Les politiques publiques sous Sarkozy, ed. J. de Maillard and Y. Surel, 71–90. Paris: Presses de Sciences-Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belot, C., L. Boussaguet, and C. Halpern. 2016. La fabrique d’une opinion publique européenne. Sélection, usages et effets des instruments. Politique européenne 54: 84–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, L. 2010. L’utilisation de la recherche sur l’opinion publique dans les politiques publiques : Le cas du programme de contrôle du tabagisme. Thèse de l’Université Laval.

  • Blondiaux, L. 1998. La fabrique de l’opinion : une histoire sociale des sondages. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouillaud, C., I. Guinaudeau, and S. Persico. 2017. Parole tenue? Une étude de la trajectoire des promesses électorales du président Nicolas Sarkozy (2007–2012). Gouvernement et Action Publique 6(3): 85–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S. 2017. Trustees, Delegates, and Responsiveness in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Political Studies 50(6): 766–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouard, S., F. Gougou, I. Guinaudeau, and S. Persico. 2013. Un effet de campagne. Le déclin de l’opposition des Français au nucléaire en 2011–2012. Revue Française de Science Politique 63(6): 1051–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, E. 2011. Constructing the Public Will: How Political Actors in New York State Construct, Assess, and Use Public Opinion In Penal Policy Making. Punishment and Society 13(4): 424–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A.L. 2012. Policy Makes Mass-Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 5: 333–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canes-Wrone, B. 2006. Who Leads Whom? Presidents, Policy and the Public. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canes-Wrone, B., M. Herron, and K. Shotts. 2001. Leadership and Pandering: A Theory of Executive Policymaking. American Journal of Political Science 45(3): 532–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R.A. 1971. Polyarchy, Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Disch, L. 2011. Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation. American Political Science Review 105(1): 100–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J., and A. Lupia. 2000. Preference Formation. Annual Review of Political Science 3: 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J., and L. Jacobs. 2015. Who Governs? Presidents, Public Opinion and Manipulation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy, C., and V. Van Ingelgom. 2016. Comment l’Union européenne fabrique (ou pas) sa propre légitimité. Les politiques européennes et leurs effets retours sur les citoyens. Politique européenne 54: 152–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, G.C.I.I.I. 2009. The Strategic President. Persuasion and Opportunity in Presidential Leadership. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, G.C.I.I.I. 2016. Predicting the Presidency. The Potential of Persuasive Leadership. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eisinger, R. 2003. The Evolution of Presidential Polling. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisinger, R. 2008. The Use of Surveys by Governments and Politicians. In The Sage Handbook of Public Opinion Research, ed. W. Donsbach and M. Traugott. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliadis, P., M. Hill, and M. Howlett. 2005. Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance. Montreal: McGill Queen’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erzow, L., and T. Hellwig. 2014. Responding to Voters or Responding to Markets? Political Parties and Public Opinion in the Era of Globalization. International Studies Quarterly 58(4): 816–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, M. 1983. Political Opinion Polling in the United States of America. In Political Opinion Polling. An International Review, ed. R. Worcester. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallup, G. 1938. Testing Public Opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly 2(1): 8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geer, J. 1996. From Tea Leaves to Opinion Polls: A Theory of Democratic Leadership. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinaudeau, I. 2014. Toward a Conditional Model of Partisanship in Policymaking. French Politics 12(3): 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, W. 2002. “Reflections of Yesterday” : George H. W. Bush’s Instrumental Use of Public Opinion Research in Presidential Discourse. Presidential Studies Quarterly 32(3): 531–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heith, D. 2000. “The Polls”: Polling for a Defence: The White House Public Opinion Apparatus and the Clinton Impeachment. Presidential Studies Quarterly 30(4): 783–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heith, D. 2003. One for All: Using Focus Group and Opinion Polls in the George H. W Bush White House. Congress and the Presidency 30(1): 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heith, D. 2004. Polling to Govern: Public Opinion and Presidential Leadership. Palo Alto: Standford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, S. 1998. Reading Public Opinion: How Political Actors View the Democratic Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbs, D. 1977. Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy. American Political Science Review 71(4): 1467–1487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbs, D. 1992. Partisan Theory After Fifteen Years. European Journal of Political Economy 8(3): 361–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillygus, D.S. 2011. The Evolution of Election Polling in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly 75(5): 962–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, S., and R. Klemmensen. 2008. Government Responsiveness and Political Competition in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Political Studies 41(3): 309–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, L. 1992. The Recoil Effect: Public Opinion and Policymaking in the U.S. and Britain. Comparative Politics 24(2): 199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, L., and R. Shapiro. 1994. Studying Substantive Democracy. PS: Political Science and Politics 27(1): 9–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/420450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, L., and R. Shapiro. 1995. The Rise of Presidential Polling: The Nixon White House in Historical Perspective. Public Opinion Quarterly 59(2): 163–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, L., and R. Shapiro. 1999. Lyndon Johnson, Vietnam, and Public Opinion: Rethinking Realist Theory of Leadership. Presidential Studies Quarterly 29(3): 592–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, L., and R. Shapiro. 2000. Politicians Don’t Pander. Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingemann, H.-D., R. Hofferbert, and I. Budge. 1994. Parties, Policies and Democracy. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruke, A. 2012. Demoskopie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumlin, S., and B. Rothstein. 2005. Making and Breaking Social Capital: The Impact of Welfare-State Institutions. Comparative Political Studies 38(4): 339–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lax, J., and J. Phillips. 2012. The Democratic Deficit in the States. American Journal of Political Science 56(1): 148–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehingue, P. 2007. Subunda. Coups de sonde dans l’océan des sondages. Bellecombe-en-Bauge: ed. du Croquant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mettler, S. 2002. Bringing the State Back Into Civic Engagement: Policy Feedback Effects of the G.I. Bill for World War II Veterans. American Political Science Review 96(2): 351–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mettler, S., and J. Stonecash. 2008. Government Program Usage and Political Voice. Social Science Quarterly 89(1): 274–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W., and D. Stokes. 1963. Constituency Influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57(1): 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, A. 1998. Public Opinion and Public Policy, 1980–1993. Public Opinion Quarterly 62(1): 6–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, S.K., and P. Howard. 2002. Variation in White House Polling Operations: Carter to Clinton. Public Opinion Quarterly 66(4): 527–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Needham, C. 2005. Brand Leaders: Clinton, Blair and the Limitations of the Permanent Campaign. Political Studies 53: 343–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ollivier-Yaniv, C. 2000. L’Etat communiquant. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco, J. 2012. The Thermostatic Model of Responsiveness in the American States. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 13(3): 306–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco, J. 2013. Attitudinal Policy Feedback and Public Opinion. The Impact of Smoking Bans on Attitudes Towards Smokers, Second-hand Smoke, and Antismoking Policies. Public Opinion Quarterly 77(3): 714–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, B., and R. Shapiro. 1983. Effects of Public Opinion on Policy. American Political Science Review 77: 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pétry, F., and B. Collette. 2009. Measuring How Political Parties Keep Their Promises: A Positive Perspective from Political Science. In Do They Walk Like They Talk?, ed. L. Imbeau, 65–80. New York: Springler.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Potrafke, N. 2017. Partisan Politics: The Empirical Evidence from OECD Panel Studies. Journal of Comparative Economics 45(4): 712–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revillard, A. 2017. La réception des politiques du handicap: Une approche par entretiens biographiques. Revue Française de Sociologie 58(1): 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rink, A., and Hilbig, H. 2017. Public Opinion and Elite Rhetoric. Paper presented at the conference of the European Political Science Association, Milan.

  • Rothmayr, C., and S. Hardmeier. 2002. Government and Polling: Use and Impact of Polls in the Policy-Making Process in Switzerland. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14(2): 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rottinghaus, B. 2003. Reassessing Public Opinion Polling in the Truman Administration. Presidential Studies Quarterly 33(2): 325–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rottinghaus, B. 2008. Presidential Leadership on Foreign Policy, Opinion Polling, and the Possible Limits of “Crafted Talk”. Political Communication 25(2): 138–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600801985334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rottinghaus, B. 2010. The Provisional Pulpit. Modern Presidential Leadership of Public Opinion. Houston: Texas University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. 1935. Politics, Pressures, and the Tariff: A Study of Free Private Enterprise in Pressure Politics, as Shown in the 1929–1930 Revision of the Tariff. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, C. 2016. Panel Data Analysis and Partisan Variables: How Periodization Does Influence Partisan Effects. Journal of European Public Policy 23(10): 1442–1459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnatterer, T. Forthcoming. Frühwarnsystem oder Instrument der Politikvermittlung? Eine Analyse der Meinungsforschung im Auftrag des Bundespresseamtes.

  • Seggelke, S. 2007. Frankreichs Staatspräsident in der politischen Kommunikation. Öffentlichkeitsarbeit in der V. Republic. Berlin: LIT Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, R. 2011. Public Opinion and American Democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly 75(5): 982–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, J. 2014. How Welfare States Shape Participatory Patterns. In How Welfare States Shape the Democratic Public. Policy Feedback, Participation, Voting, and Attitudes, ed. S. Kumlin and I. Stadelmann-Steffen, 41–62. Cheltenham: Edwards Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skocpol, T. 1994. From Social Security to Health Security? Opinion and Rhetoric in U.S. Social Policy Making. PS. Political Science and Politics 27(1): 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soroka, S., and C. Wlezien. 2005. Opinion-Policy Dynamics: Public Preferences and Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Political Science 35(4): 665–689. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123405000347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, R. 1974. The Pulse of the People. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Gauging of American Public Opinion. Journal of Contemporary History 9: 195–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stonecash, J. 2008. Political Polling. Strategic Information in Campaign, 2nd ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, R., T. Royed, E. Naurin, J. Artès, R. Costello, L. Ennser-Jedenastik, M. Ferguson, P. Kostadinova, C. Moury, F. Pétry, and K. Praprotnik. 2017. The Fulfillment of Parties’ Election Pledges: A Comparative Study on the Impact of Power Sharing. American Journal of Political Science 61(3): 527–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Towle, M. 2004. Out of Touch: The Presidency and Public Opinion. College Station: Texas University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wlezien, C. 1995. The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending. American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 981–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wlezien, C., and S. Soroka. 2007. The Relationship Between Public Opinion and Policy. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, ed. R. Dalton and H.-D. Klingemann, 799–817. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wlezien, C., and S. Soroka. 2012. Political Institutions and the Opinion-Policy Link. West European Politics 35(6): 1407–1432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worcester, R. 1991. British Public Opinion. A Guide to the History and Methodology of Political Opinion Polling. London: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank French Politics’ editors as well as Tinette Schnatterer for their useful comments. Once again, Anna Jeannesson’s English proofreading has been of invaluable help. All errors remain mine.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Pacte, Sciences-Po Grenoble, Grenoble, France

    Céline Belot

Authors
  1. Céline Belot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Céline Belot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Belot, C. Exploring the democratic linkage through the lens of governmental polling: a research agenda. Fr Polit 17, 211–226 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-018-0075-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-018-0075-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation