The parliamentary election in Thailand, December 2007

Schafferer, Christian

doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2008.07.004

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly, this political trust does not arise from political naïveté or inefficacy regarding new institutions or processes in emergent democracies. In particular, perhaps contrary to expectations, studies show that citizens in the early stages of democratizing nations generally express political skepticism or distrust rather than trust, perhaps a carryover from previous regimes (Duch, 2001; Mattes & Bratton, 2007; Mishler & Rose, 1997; Rüland, 2003; Schafferer, 2008). Thus, political disaffection from the previous regime, unfamiliarity with parties in the emergent democracies, and competition with other social groups or identities generally foster distrust or skepticism rather than political trust.…”

Section: Economic Performance Democratic Support and Political Trustcontrasting

confidence: 61%

“…Thus, political disaffection from the previous regime, unfamiliarity with parties in the emergent democracies, and competition with other social groups or identities generally foster distrust or skepticism rather than political trust. Related to this, studies also show that the foundation blocks of this political trust—learning and confidence—distinguish it from political naïveté or blind faith (Duch, 2001; Gibson, 1996; Mattes & Bratton, 2007; Mishler & Rose, 1997; Rüland, 2003; Schafferer, 2008). Indeed, it is through experience with democratization that citizens exhibit the political trust that facilitates their demand for government responsiveness and performance.…”

Section: Economic Performance Democratic Support and Political Trustmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Economic Performance and Democratic Support in Asia’s Emergent Democracies

Yap

2012

Comparative Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does economic performance affect support for democracy in emergent democracies? Government approval studies do not directly evaluate this. Recent literature suggests using separate assessments: Citizens in emergent democracies—through political trust—distinguish between government approval and democratic support. This article directly assesses the question for Asia’s democratizing nations of Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, and the Philippines. Two results are relevant: First, economic performance explains government approval over time and across these democratizing nations. This result accords with findings from other regions to lend to the accumulation of knowledge from extending study to Asia. Second, economic performance does not explain democratic support; instead, political trust is statistically related to democratic support. Specifically, although political trust and economic performance both explain government approval, political trust outweighs economic conditions in explaining democratic support. These results show that by building political trust in the democratizing system, citizens may hold officials accountable while remaining committed to democratic development. Theoretically, then, this article synthesizes diverse findings in the literature to enrich theory building.

show abstract

Section: Economic Performance Democratic Support and Political Trustcontrasting

confidence: 61%

Section: Economic Performance Democratic Support and Political Trustmentioning

confidence: 90%

Economic Performance and Democratic Support in Asia’s Emergent Democracies

Yap

2012

Comparative Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Importantly, this study of the effects of political trust departs from the vast scholarship on the causes of political trust, motivated largely by declining political trust in the mature democracies of United States (US) and western industrialised countries. Nevertheless, these latter studies are instructive to our examination in at least two regards: first, they underline a critical feature of political trust; specifically, it stems from repeated experience with regularised, fair patterns and is not because of naïvete (Mishler and Rose 2001; Mattes and Bratton 2007; Schafferer 2009; Yap 2013a). Indeed, some studies show that citizens during early democratisation generally express political scepticism or distrust rather than trust (Mishler and Rose 2001; Mattes and Bratton 2007; Schafferer 2009; Yap 2013a).…”

Section: Political Trust Incumbent Approval and System Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, these latter studies are instructive to our examination in at least two regards: first, they underline a critical feature of political trust; specifically, it stems from repeated experience with regularised, fair patterns and is not because of naïvete (Mishler and Rose 2001; Mattes and Bratton 2007; Schafferer 2009; Yap 2013a). Indeed, some studies show that citizens during early democratisation generally express political scepticism or distrust rather than trust (Mishler and Rose 2001; Mattes and Bratton 2007; Schafferer 2009; Yap 2013a). In effect, political disaffection, unfamiliarity with parties in the emergent democracies or competition with other social groups or identities generally fosters distrust or scepticism rather than political trust; with repeated experience of regularised, fair patterns, the public disaffection shifts to political trust.…”

Section: Political Trust Incumbent Approval and System Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

How political trust matters in emergent democracies: evidence from East and Southeast Asia

Yap¹

2018

J. Pub. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does political trust affect the competing pressures of policy versus political performance in emergent democracies? Studies suggest that political trust buffers against these pressures, but empirical evidence is lacking in regard to if or how, given the focus in the literature on mature democracies where democratic institutions and practices are unlikely to be upended by either policy or political underperformance. However, in emergent democracies where the risks of democratic reversal loom large, the distinction is highly relevant. This article investigates how political trust matters in emergent democracies, specifically, if political trust buffers against public pressures, and whether it is system-directed versus incumbent-directed, for East and Southeast Asia. The evidence from multiple waves of survey data provides three useful insights: first, it shows that political trust supersedes economic expectations in support for the democratising system; this supports political trust as a buffer for the political system and is system-directed. Second, political trust goes hand-in-hand with economic performance to explain support for the incumbent government. This finding clarifies that political trust does not buffer the government against public pressure for performance. Third, taken together, the results show that economic growth may keep a government in office but institution-building leads to political trust that undergirds the political system, so that institution-building is a priority for stability in emergent democracies. These results expand the political trust literature to underpin democratic progression and consolidation issues that are unique to emergent democracies.

show abstract

“…a micro-credit development fund for villages, a subsidized universal healthcare and low-cost universal access to anti-retroviral HIV medication, among others (HDR 2007), subsequent efforts have been made by other parties to provide welfare services to the poor. For instance, in the 2007 elections, the Democrat Party in Thailand, whose support base primarily comprised the relatively richer segments of society, adopted a populist platform to woo the rural areas (Schafferer, 2008). The Democrat Party’s emphasis on populist policies indicates that even though their support base consisted of the middle and upper strata of society, they had to appeal to the masses with the promise of providing them with welfare benefits due to high levels of party competition.…”

Section: Effective Number Of Parliamentary Parties and Human Well-beingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Party systems and human well-being

Mukherjee

2011

Party Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the impact of party systems on human well-being and argues that multiparty systems are associated with better welfare outcomes for two primary reasons: first, multiparty systems provide representation to multiple issue-dimensions in society, thereby indicating a more inclusive system, which ensures that diverse societal interests are taken into account during formulation of welfare policies. Second, multiparty systems also indicate a competitive party system, which provides incentives for parties to perform effectively while in office and propels parties to appeal to multiple segments of society by providing broader welfare services. The impact of party systems on human well-being is tested on a global sample of 68 democratic countries from 1975–2000. The findings show support for the hypothesized relationship between party systems and human well-being.

show abstract

The parliamentary election in Thailand, December 2007

Cited by 5 publications

References 3 publications

Economic Performance and Democratic Support in Asia’s Emergent Democracies

Economic Performance and Democratic Support in Asia’s Emergent Democracies

How political trust matters in emergent democracies: evidence from East and Southeast Asia

Party systems and human well-being

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About