https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6840-5560
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
During the Great Recession, European democracies underwent major political changes, from the spread of institutional discontent to the rise of radical populist parties. The erosion of democratic satisfaction in EU member states after the exogenous shock of the economic crisis is a significant phenomenon that requires innovative analysis and explanation. This article develops a new conceptual and empirical framework that examines how democracies are affected by exogenous shocks and the determinants of resilient democracies. The study explores the notion of democratic resilience, conceptualized as democratic resilience as the system characteristics which successfully adapt to or overcome democratic delegitimization processes after a shock. The analysis provides a classification of democracies by trajectory, distinguishing between preventive, recovered, and damaged democracies, and identifies which political characteristics have successfully increased or decreased democratic resilience. External political efficacy and economic satisfaction are highlighted as indispensable components and mediators of political and economic contextual features for a more resilient and stable political system during economic crises.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Robert M. Fishman and Dr. Elias Dinas for all the support received for their help in preparing and writing this article in its entirety. I also greatly appreciate all the feedback received from faculty members at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (UC3M) and the Political Behavior Colloquium at the European University Institute to refine the data and potential explanatory mechanisms for these counterintuitive results. Finally, thanks to all my family, my partner and friends who support and help me outside of academia and who are an essential foundation for continuing my research career.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Ágh, “The Decline of Democracy”; Foa and Mounk, “The Signs of Deconsolidation”; Levitsky and Ziblatt, How Democracies Dies; Norris and Inglehart, Cultural Backlash.
2 Linz and Stepan, “Toward Consolidated Democracies”.
3 Offe, “Referendum vs. Institutionalized Deliberation”.
4 Armingeon and Guthmann, “Democracy in Crisis?”; Kriesi and Pappas, “European Populism in the Shadow”; Lindvall, “Politics and Policies”; Przeworski, Crises of Democracy.
5 Luhmann, Sistemas sociales.
6 Norris, “Is Western Democracy Backsliding”, 18.
7 Scharpf, Governing in Europe.
8 Foa and Mounk, “The Signs of Deconsolidation”; Hernández and Kriesi, “The Electoral Consequences of the Financial Crisis”; Levitsky and Ziblatt, How Democracies Die; Norris and Inglehart, Cultural Backlash.
9 Merkel and Luhrmann, “Resilience of Democracies”; Luhrmann, “Disrupting the Autocratization Sequence”.
10 Easton, “A Re-Assessment of Political Support”.
11 See note 2 above.
12 Easton, “A Re-Assessment of Political Support”, 444.
13 Norris, Critical Citizens; Norris, Democratic Deficit.
14 Linz and Stepan, “Toward Consolidated Democracies”; Diamond, Devoloping Democracy; Claassen, “Does Public Support Help Democracy”.
15 Linde and Ekman, “Satisfaction with Democracy”; van Ham et al., Myth and Reality of Legitimacy Crisis.
16 Almond and Verba, The Civic Culture; Lipset and Schneider, “The Confidence Gap”; Norris 1999; Pharr and Putnam, Disaffected Democracies; Torcal and Montero, Political Disaffection in Contemporary Democracies.
17 See note 13 above.
18 See Pew Research Center report Many Across the Globe; and also, Foa et al., The Global Satisfaction with Democracy Report.
19 van Ham et al., Myth and Reality of Legitimacy Crisis; Luhrmann, “Disrupting the Autocratization Sequence”.
20 Evans and Whitefield, “The Politics and Economics of Democratic Commitment”; Inglehart, “How Solid Is Mass Support for Democracy”; Torcal and Montero, Political Disaffection in Contemporary Democracies.
21 Armingeon and Guthman, “Democracy in Crisis”; Bermeo and Bartels, Mass Politics in Tough Times; Ruiz-Rufino and Alonso, “Democracy Without Choice”.
22 De Marco et al., Ciudadanos y Democracia Representativa; Diamond, Performance and Cultural Politics; Fishman, Democratic Practice; Ganuza and Nez, Among Militants and Deliberative Laboratories; Levitsky and Way, “The Myth of Democratic Deconsolidation”; Torcal, “The Decline of Political Trust”
23 Bauman, “Social Media Are a Trap”
24 Armingeon and Guthmann, “Democracy in Crisis”; Bermeo and Bartels, Mass Politics in Tough Times; Cordero and Simon, “Economic Crisis and Support for Democracy”; Morlino and Quaranta, “What Is the Impact of the Economic Crisis”; Schraff and Schimmelfennig, “Eurozone Bailouts and National Democracy”
25 Easton, “A Re-Assessment of Political Support”; Sanders et al., “Output Oriented Legitimacy”.
26 Jones, “Output Legitimacy”.
27 Scharpf, Governing in Europe; Schmidt, “Democracy and Legitimacy”.
28 Hernández and Kriesi, “Electoral Consequences of the Financial and Economic Crisis”; Hetherington and Rudolph, Why Washington Won’t Work; Kriesi “Political Consequences of the Financial and Economic Crisis”; Kriesi and Pappas, European Populism; Magalhaes, “Government Effectiveness”; Torcal “The Decline of Political Support”.
29 Fishman, Democratic Practice; Gillens, “Descriptive Reprensentation, Money, and Political Inequality”.
30 Campbell et al., The Voter Decides, 187.
31 Balch, “Sense of Political Efficacy”; Craig and Maggiotto, “Measuring Political Efficacy”.
32 Craig, “Efficacy, Trust, and Political Behavior”; Craig and Maggiotto, “Measuring Political Efficacy”; Finkel, “Reciprocal Effects of Participation”.
33 Hagemann et al., “Goverment Responsivness in the EU”.
34 Cordero and Simón, “Economic Crisis and Support for Democracy”; Magalhaes “Government Effectiveness”; Sanchez-Cuenca, La impotencia democrática.
35 Anderson, “Community Psychology”; Karp and Banducci, “Political Efficacy and Participation”; Lobo and Razzuoli, “Party Finance and Perceived Party Responsiveness”.
36 Dahlbert and Holmberg, “Democracy and Bureaucracy”; Lapuente and Rothstein, “The Quality of Government Factor”; Rothstein, “Epistemic Democracy”.
37 Christmann, “Economic Performance, Quality of Democracy”; Diamond and Morlino, Assessing the Quality of Democracy; Martini and Quaranta, “Political Support among Winners and Losers”.
38 Borang et al., “The Quality of Government Determinants”.
39 Harteveld et al., “A Tough Trade-Off?”; Snegovaya and Petrova, “From Democratization to Populism”; Zaslove et al., “Power to the People?”.
40 Bartels, “Political Effects of the Great Recession”; Dassonneville and Lewis-Beck, “Macroeconomics, Economic Crisis”; Hetherington and Rudolph 2015; Kriesi, “Political Consequences of the Financial and Economic Crisis”; Muro and Vidal, “Political Mistrust”.
41 Duch and Stevenson, The Economic Vote; Lewis-Beck and Stegmaier, “Economic Determinants of Electoral Outcomes”; Schäfer, “Consequences of Social Inequality”
42 Huber and Lafférs, “Bounds on Direct and Indirect Effects”; Gunzler et al., “Introduction to Mediation Analysis”
43 See Fishman’s argument about the different democratic experiences in Spain and Portugal in his book Democratic Practice.
44 Kriesi and Pappas, “European Populism in the Shadow”; Muro and Vidal, “Political Mistrust”.
45 Ruiz-Rufino and Alonso, “Democracy Without Choice”.
46 Schraff and Schimmelfennig, “Eurozone Bailouts and National Democracy”.
47 van Houwelingen and Dekker, “Satisfaction with Democracy in Perspective”
48 Harteveld et al., “A Tough Trade-Off?”; Snegovaya and Petrova, “From Democratization to Populism”; Zaslove et al., “Power to the People?”.
49 Ibid.
50 Martini and Quaranta, “Political Support among Winners and Losers”
51 Boese et al., “How Democracies Prevail”
52 Democratic resilience outcome is not corroborated under 90% criteria (*)
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Alejandro Tirado Castro
I am a Ph.D. student at the Department of Social Sciences at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. I specialized in Public Opinion, Political Behavior and Electoral Studies. My research mainly concerns democratic legitimacy after the impact of the Great Recession in Europe. In my research, I focus on the trends in satisfaction with democracy and political trust after the economic crisis of 2008, as well as the determinants of stability and fluctuation in both phenomena during this period. Likewise, my thesis also explores the effect of ideological polarization and its influence on the so-called Winner-Loser Gap, delving into the detrimental effect and causes of the disruption of satisfaction with democracy.