Democratic values and support for executive power

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Presidential Studies Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1111/psq.12837
Andrew Reeves, Jon C. Rogowski
{"title":"Democratic values and support for executive power","authors":"Andrew Reeves, Jon C. Rogowski","doi":"10.1111/psq.12837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Attempts by elected executives to consolidate power have generated alarm and raised concern about democratic backsliding. In contrast with scholarship on public approval ratings of elected executives, we study the nature of mass attitudes toward the institutional power of the office of the presidency. We investigate the potential for mass publics to constrain antidemocratic behavior and argue that individuals’ democratic values shape views of executive power. Using data from twenty-six countries in the Americas and thirty-seven countries in Africa, we find support for our perspective. Individuals who express stronger commitments to democracy are less supportive of institutional arrangements that favor the executive. Our findings suggest that citizens’ democratic commitments may constrain the ambitions of power-seeking executives and the erosion of democratic practices. their Cronbach’s alpha is .4 indicating that they are not each reliable measuring the same underlying concept. Conducting a principal component analysis yields similar finding. The first dimension explains just 38 percent of the variance with each additional dimension explaining between 18 and 24 percent of the variance. These concepts appear to be measuring somewhat different conceptions of executive power and so we analyze them separately. these country-level sources of variation. Future research could evaluate","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12837","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Attempts by elected executives to consolidate power have generated alarm and raised concern about democratic backsliding. In contrast with scholarship on public approval ratings of elected executives, we study the nature of mass attitudes toward the institutional power of the office of the presidency. We investigate the potential for mass publics to constrain antidemocratic behavior and argue that individuals’ democratic values shape views of executive power. Using data from twenty-six countries in the Americas and thirty-seven countries in Africa, we find support for our perspective. Individuals who express stronger commitments to democracy are less supportive of institutional arrangements that favor the executive. Our findings suggest that citizens’ democratic commitments may constrain the ambitions of power-seeking executives and the erosion of democratic practices. their Cronbach’s alpha is .4 indicating that they are not each reliable measuring the same underlying concept. Conducting a principal component analysis yields similar finding. The first dimension explains just 38 percent of the variance with each additional dimension explaining between 18 and 24 percent of the variance. These concepts appear to be measuring somewhat different conceptions of executive power and so we analyze them separately. these country-level sources of variation. Future research could evaluate
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
民主价值观和对行政权力的支持
民选高管巩固权力的尝试引起了人们的警觉,并引发了人们对民主倒退的担忧。与关于民选高管公众支持率的学术研究相反,我们研究了大众对总统职位制度权力的态度的性质。我们调查了大众约束反民主行为的潜力,并认为个人的民主价值观塑造了对行政权力的看法。利用来自26个美洲国家和37个非洲国家的数据,我们为我们的观点找到了支持。对民主表达更坚定承诺的个人不太支持有利于行政部门的制度安排。我们的研究结果表明,公民的民主承诺可能会限制追求权力的高管的野心和民主实践的侵蚀。他们的Cronbachα是.4,这表明他们并不是每个人都可靠地测量相同的基本概念。进行主成分分析会得出类似的结论。第一个维度只解释了38%的方差,每个额外的维度解释了18%到24%的方差。这些概念似乎在衡量不同的行政权力概念,因此我们分别对其进行分析。这些国家一级的变化来源。未来的研究可以评估
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Presidential Studies Quarterly
Presidential Studies Quarterly POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
47
期刊最新文献
Emotional labor in decision making: Gender, race, and relational practices in the White House The case for agency: Three dimensions of discretion in presidential agenda construction The problematic but seductive call of prerogative power Partisanship and public support for presidential norms I like Ike: The origins of broadcast presidential campaign advertising
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1