Market-oriented Political Engagement – A Problematised Ideal? Attitudes Towards Political Consumerism among Elected Representatives in Sweden

ABSTRACT

Market-oriented political participation, often referred to as political consumerism, is one of the most rapidly proliferating modes of citizen participation in the Western world. Argued to circumvent the political sphere, this rising mode of engagement has caused scholars to consider the relationship between political consumerism and the functioning of representative democracy. So far, however, the implications of market-oriented participation for the role of elected representatives have been widely overlooked. Drawing from the theory of responsibilisation, I consider whether political consumerism, by circumventing the traditional political arena, risk challenging the role of representatives as responsible actors within the confines of representative democracy. Resorting to a mixed-method approach, using data from the online panel of Swedish politicians, as well as interview material with Swedish MPs, this article investigates representatives’ attitudes to political consumerism and finds a considerable support among the elected, with the greatest approval among representatives to the left. But when considered in relation to representative democracy, political consumerism is argued to challenge its core functions, including the responsibility and accountability assigned to representatives. Together the results accentuate a strong reliance on market-oriented participation among representatives in Sweden, but also a recognition of potential democratic perils related to the same.

KEYWORDS:

• Political consumerism
• representative democracy
• responsibilisation

Introduction

During the past decades, the nature of citizen political participation has undergone fundamental changes in most Western democracies. One of the central aspects of this shift involves the steady growth of market-oriented political behaviour, often referred to as political consumerism (Dalton, 2020) which encompasses the deliberative choice (buycott) or avoidance (boycott) of products and services based on political, ethical, or environmental considerations (Stolle, 2013, p. 70). Identified as the most rapidly proliferating mode of political engagement in North-western Europe (see e.g., Stolle, 2013), political consumerism has become a fixed element in the political participation repertoire, thus establishing the consumer as a central figure in the political landscape.

Market-oriented by nature, political consumerism is arguably distinguished from other non-governmental modes of participation. Involving actors, efforts and processes that do not derive authority or legitimacy from the political sphere but the marketplace, this rising mode of engagement is argued to circumvent representative politics by assigning responsibility to market actors and individual citizens (Druckman & Valdes, 2019). While this shift in responsibility has caused scholars to consider democratic potentials and perils related to political consumerism, the perceptive of elected representatives is yet a lacking element in related theoretical discussions. Nor has any empirical research examined the assessment of political consumerism among elected representatives. By means of a two-phase study focusing on the case of Sweden, this article fills this theoretical and empirical gap by investigating how representatives perceive political consumerism in relation to the functioning of representative democracy.

To enhance a broad and generalised understanding of representatives’ attitudes, the initial phase examines the extent to which political consumerism is considered an ideal mode of political engagement, the degree to which it is perceived effective, and whether party affiliation is a determinant factor for representatives’ attitudes towards the same. Using unique survey material obtained by the annual online Swedish survey Panel of Politicians, these three measures provide a generalised advice on representatives’ perceptions of political consumerism. In a second phase, I conduct in-depth interviews with eight Swedish MPs, which allows for a deeper understanding of representatives’ attitudes towards political consumerism.

Results from the quantitative study suggest that a majority of representatives in Sweden consider political consumerism an ideal mode of citizen engagement. Further, party affiliation is shown to be a significant determinant of representatives’ attitudes towards the same, showing that representatives to the left are more in favour when compared to representatives to the right. In the qualitative phase, the picture is nuanced and two opposing positions are identified: one considering political consumerism to strengthen representative democracy, and one, in stark contrast, understanding market-oriented participation as a mode which risk undermining political responsibility and accountability. The results accentuate the importance of further considering the functioning of representative democracy and the role of elected representatives in conversations about political consumerism.

In a society where politicians rely on the market as a venue for citizen participation, we could potentially witness an increasingly consumer-oriented role of politicians whereby representatives undertake to ‘influence’ consumers in the marketplace, rather than engaging citizens in the political sphere. This development might in turn indicate a renegotiation of the premises for political participation within representative democracy – a possibility that merits further consideration.

Previous Research

The link between political consumerism and political representatives has received scant attention in the empirical literature in general, and surprisingly little is known about representatives’ attitudes vis-à-vis these activities. The few existing studies have examined the perceived effectiveness of political consumerism among representatives, showing that politicians across Europe seem to share the opinion that political consumerism, along with other non-institutionalised participation forms, is rather ineffective in influencing decision-making (Hooghe & Marien, 2014; Naurin et al., 2013). In a study which set out to examine politicians’ responsiveness relative to non-institutional activities, Druckman and Valdes (2019) find that a constituent's references to such engagement decrease representatives’ willingness to peruse and support desired politics. Research examining explanatory factors find that ideology is of importance when assessing representatives’ attitudes towards non-institutionalised participation, showing that left-leaning politicians have higher acceptance of these forms compared to their counterparts (Druckman & Valdes, 2019; Gilljam et al., 2012).

While empirical literature on politicians’ response to political consumerism has remained scarce, a conflict can be observed in the normative theory between authors highlighting the democratic potential of market-oriented participation, versus those who emphasise democratic perils related to the same. These two opposing camps have traditionally been represented by the political left-right dimension (Wejryd, 2018): while argued to undermine any sense of collective and public ambition by thinkers to the left (see e.g., Marcuse, 1964), political consumerism has often been advocated by scholars subscribing to a neo-liberal perspective, celebrating purchasing power as an important complement to the participation repertoire offered by representative democracy (see e.g., Friedman, 1980).

Political Consumerism and the Democratic Issue of Responsibilisation

In representative democracies, governments and their institutions operate through what Hanna Arendt calls ‘the power of the promise’ (Arendt, 1958, p. 243), a concept which resonates with social contract theory and that centres on the idea of democratic representation: while governments and representatives undertake to represent the public and to act in their interests, the represented legitimise specific powers of such institutions and agrees to submit to the law. In other words, representative democracies realise a ‘vertical’ mode of politics by placing power and responsibility in the hands of elected representatives (Tormey, 2015).

However, in the realm of the new governance landscape, it is argued that the promise between representatives and represented is being reworked. As a political agency and practice increasingly resides to market rationalities, and as politics is realised in the realm of the everyday, and especially consumption culture, citizens are arguably rendered responsible to self-manage complex societal problems (Bauman, 2000; Johnston, 2007; Kyroglou & Henn, 2017) – to undertake and perform ‘self-governing tasks’ (Shamir, 2008, p. 8). The implication drawn is thus that market entities and individual citizens assume duties that were once assigned to political actors (Shamir, 2008). This shift of responsibility from representatives to represented, often referred to as ‘responsibilisation’ (Giddens, 1991), is what distinguishes political consumerism from other non-governmental forms, such as participating in demonstrations, signing petitions, etc., which, although not performed within the governmental space, are all directed towards the same (van Deth, 2014).

In the literature, the underlying process of responsibilisation is argued to complicate the nature of representative democracy: as political consumerism circumvents the public politics route, citizens might avoid turning to government and elected representatives – those who in theory represent the citizenry writ large (Druckman & Valdes, 2019). Furthermore, as theorised in this article, in a society where political consumerism is promoted as a complement to, or even a substitute for the citizenship ideal of democratic participation, the question arises as to what supports the core principles of the representative link between representatives and represented. When the market is staged as a zone and space of politics, and consumer choice is promoted as a preferred venue for political participation, political action could be rendered ‘horizontal’ and leaderless and consequently, we could witness a development whereby representatives are no longer defined as principle responsible political actors. This raises the significant question as to how representatives look upon political consumerism and their roles as responsible political actors in relation to a repertoire whereby, in the words of Evans et al. (2017, p. 21) ‘responsibilities are individualized, and consumers are responsibilized’.

Methods

The empirical analysis of this study applied a mixed method approach which typically consists of two distinct phases: an initial phase where quantitative data is collected and analysed, followed by a qualitative data collection phase which builds directly on the results obtained from the former. While statistical measures provide a broad and general understanding of the research problem, qualitative data and their subsequent analysis are deemed helpful in elaborating those results by exploring participants’ views and understandings in more depth (Creswell, 2018). Recalling that political representatives’ attitudes towards market-oriented participation is a blind spot in representative democracy research, focusing solely on statistical measures would risk leaving out valuable data in terms of aspects that have not previously been defined in theory.

The quantitative phase was based on unique survey material from Swedish political representatives obtained by the SOM institute at Gothenburg university. The second phase resorted to a qualitative approach by means of semi-structured in-depth interviews with eight members of the Swedish parliament.

Quantitative Study

To measure representatives’ attitudes towards political consumerism and to investigate the relation between party affiliation and attitudes to the same, OLS regressions were conducted and analysed. Given that survey responses were recorded on ordinal and dichotomous scales respectively, ordinal logistic regression and logistic regression are considered the correct ways of modelling the dependent variable (Mehmetoglu, 2022). However, having concluded that the results obtained from the ordinal logistic regression and logistic regression respectively mirror the results from the OLS regressions (see Table A2 in the Appendix), for the sake of simplicity, the decision was made to resort to the later way of modelling. In addition, simple two-dimensional cross-tabulations were conducted to demonstrate frequency and patterns in the sample.

Sample and Recruitment

The dataset used for this article was the 2020 online panel of Swedish politicians that is generated twice a year by the SOM Institute at Gothenburg University. The panel reaches about 3600 politicians from local, regional and national levels corresponding to about 10% of the whole population of politicians in Sweden, and 35% of the country's MPs. All parliamentary candidates in the 2018 national election and all members of all local and regional parliaments have been asked if they want to participate, resulting in a sample of 1620 respondents in total (45% response rate). All parties were proportionally represented in the sample, except for the Sweden Democrats.¹ The decision to study the Swedish context and to survey Swedish representatives was based on the objective to study attitudes among political representatives in a country where political consumerism is widely spread. Sweden is the country where both buycott and boycott is most disseminated (see e.g., Zorell, 2018).

Measures

The key concept was broadly defined by recurring to the global term ‘political consumerism’. The reason for this is twofold: first, the focus being to study the means (in singular) of political consumerism, rather than the different approaches to this means, the use of the overall conception was considered appropriate.² Secondly, recalling that this wave is the first to include a variety of measurements of attitudes towards political consumerism among representatives, there is good reason to argue for the use of a wide conceptual definition which can – if theoretically required – be narrowed down in future research. Drawing from this, the definition offered in the survey was as follows: ‘To either reject or deliberately support certain products or services to influence society’. The choice to exclude underlying drivers such as green or ethical considerations was based on the risk of sliding with the focus of inquiry from the act of political consumerism as such to its content (Zorell, 2018, emphasis mine). Two categories of attitudes served as a basis for the dependent variable: (1) normative attitudes and (2) positive/descriptive attitudes, whereby each variant could be assessed individually for its relationship with the independent variable. Normative attitudes were measured with the question: ‘Should political consumerism be used to influence society?’ which was followed by three options: 1 = ‘Yes, it should be used to influence society’, 2 = ‘No, it should not be used to influence society’ and 3 = ‘Don't know’. The variable was recoded to have only two values (1 = Yes and 0 = No). The question measuring positive attitudes was surveyed as: ‘How do you consider political consumerism as a way of influencing society?’ followed by five options: 1 = ‘Political consumerism is a very ineffective way to influence society’, 4 = ‘Political consumerism is a very effective way in influencing society’ and 5 = ‘Don't know’. To counteract order effects, the sequence of the questions was randomised in the survey for each respondent. The independent variable, party affiliation, was measured by a dummy variable with the Left Party as the referent category. Lastly, relevant controls were included in the regressions, including gender, education, age and parliamentary position.

Results

The results suggest that most representatives recognise political consumerism as a tool that should be used in influencing society (see Table 1). Representatives who reported to normatively support this form of engagement make up the proportion of 62%, compared to the 18% who indicated they do not normatively support political consumerist activities. The clear indication that a lion's share of political representatives believe political consumerism should be used in influencing society is significant since it reveals political consumerism not just as a ‘tolerable’ act of engagement, but as a political tool that is considered an ideal – a model way of engaging in the political life – among elected representatives.

Table 1. Attitudes towards political consumerism among representatives in Sweden by party.

	V	MP	S	C	L	M	KD	SD	Total	Diff. from Max.
Normative attitudes
Political consumerism should be used	84%	83%	66%	63%	56%	42%	49%	40%	62%	42%
Political consumerism should not be used	3%	3%	10%	14%	21%	35%	27%	34%	18%	32%
Don't know	13%	14%	24%	23%	23%	23%	24%	26%	20%	12%
Positive attitudes
Very effective or somewhat effective	71%	73%	72%	72%	57%	48%	58%	43%	63%	30%
Very ineffective or somewhat ineffective	17%	15%	12%	13%	22%	35%	24%	34%	21%	23%
Don't know	12%	12%	16%	15%	21%	17%	18%	23%	16%	11%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Source: Swedish Panel of Politicians 2020.

The share of representatives who deemed political consumerism very or somewhat effective amounts to the same share that normatively supports political consumerist activities. In other words, the extent to which representatives consider political consumerism effective seems to follow the level of normative support and vice versa.³ Importantly, the observed results differ from the observations made in Naurin et al. (2013), showing a low perceived effectiveness of political consumerism among representatives in Sweden. The observed difference could be due to the framing of the question in the previous study, measuring representatives’ attitudes towards political consumerism along with other, institutionalised and elite-directed modes of actions, thus potentially creating attitudes in favour of these activities.⁴

Results obtained from the OLS regression (see Table A2 in the Appendix) showed that party affiliation significantly affects representatives’ normative attitudes to political consumerism as well as the perceived effectiveness of the same.⁵ The effect was statistically significant at the 99%-level and the explanatory power remained the same when including control variables. The observed considerable difference in attitudes between parties is mirrored in the descriptive statistics (Table 1), showing a large difference between parties to the left and parties to the right. As many as 84% of representatives from the Left Party considered political consumerism a political tool that should be used in the political participation repertoire, while the corresponding figure for the Moderate Party was 42%, thus indicating a difference of no less than 42%. As for the controls, the results largely reflect the observations made in the general population, with women and higher educated being more engaged in political consumerist activities.⁶ The fact that female politicians are more inclined to participate in market-oriented political engagement is an interesting observation in itself and should be further investigated.

In summary, although representatives significantly varied in their levels of normative support of political consumerism, across all parties, a considerable part – and in several cases, a vast majority – of the surveyed considered political consumerism an ideal way of influencing society. The same trend could be observed for positive attitudes. This significant advocacy for market-oriented citizen participation calls for further scrutiny: what constitutes the ideational background against which these attitudes are formulated, and how can this support be understood in relation to the issue of responsibilisation? These questions were elaborated on in the succeeding qualitative phase of the study.

Qualitative Study

Interviewees were asked to discuss political consumerism in relation to representative democracy. In contrast to the quantitative study, the qualitative phase conceptually treated boycott and buycott separately by asking informants if their attitudes towards the two modes of actions differ.⁷ For the sake of generalizability and interpretation, four codes were inductively derived from the qualitative data. The codes relate to how political consumerism is perceived in relation to the functioning of the representative democracy: undermining; strengthening; challenging; and complementing. The results where then mapped and analysed in relation to these four respective categories.

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, all interviews were conducted from a distance using Zoom. The interviews took place from mid-May 2021 to July 2021. To decrease the risk of errors when transcribing and hence ensure the reliability of the material, all interviews were performed with a recording device.⁸ On completing the transcription of the interviews, copies of the transcripts were forwarded to the interviewees to try to ensure that the representation of the respondents’ information was as accurate as possible. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, and the quotes are literal translations from Swedish by the author.

Sample and Recruitment

Drawing from the conceptual understanding of political consumerism as a form of political participation, the ambition was to reach interviewees well versed in issues regarding citizen participation and democracy, but not necessarily well knowledgeable of or engaged with political consumerism as such, nor of issues representing the contents of it, such as environmental sustainability, fair and solidarity trade, etc. The rationale for this approach was grounded in the aspiration to not seek ‘subjective experts’ (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p. 292), since they could be predisposed to hold biased perceptions of the issue at hand.

The search for good informants was characterised by what is referred to as snowball sampling, a form of non-probability sampling that is particularly suitable in the study of elites (Tansey, 2007). Following this technique, a centrally positioned person in the respective party was contacted and asked to direct me to representatives knowledgeable about citizen participation and democracy. This person then in turn directed me to a second person and so forth. Following the principle of ‘theoretical saturation’ (see e.g., Rubin, 2005), I continued interviewing until I reached a point where no new themes were identified, and no new insights were obtained. All in all, this gave me a group of eights individuals, including four MPs from the Left Party and the Moderate Party respectively.

The reason to interview representatives from the Left Party and the Moderate Party was based on the objective to survey representatives from one right-wing and one left-wing party respectively. Drawing from the theoretical literature, suggesting the support of political consumerism to be linked to the traditional left-right dimension, I deemed it most interesting to further study these two parties.⁹ The choice to interview representatives at the national level was based on the notion that they are comparatively more engaged in principal issues related to the representative democracy, compared to politicians at the local level. This general rule is reflected in research showing that local politics in most places is less ideological and partisan than national politics (see e.g., Bäck et al., 2015; Oliver et al., 2012). Since this article focuses precisely on the ideological and principal understanding of political consumerism, I deem this argument important in motivating my choice of interviewees.

Results

The Left Party

When reflecting on political consumerism as a mode of political participation, the Left Party was seemingly split into two opposing positions: one highly favourable of market-oriented engagement, and one, on the contrary, rather dismissive of the same.¹⁰ Within the first group, political consumerism was recognised as a potent democratic addition to the conventional participation repertoire and an important and necessary tool for influencing the political content and direction. From this perspective, political consumerism was argued to democratise political engagement by enabling participation among those who do not have access to, or time to engage in other, more conventional modes of political activities. In other words, in line with the pro-market rationale applied by Friedman (1980) among others, the market was cast in terms of a democratic sphere in which everyone can participate on equal terms. The following lines of reasoning thus present a confidence in the market and its potential to create equality in terms of citizen participation that clearly differs from the market criticism traditionally linked to the leftist tradition:

IPV1: Everyone does not have the possibility to engage in a political party due to time constraints or lack of energy, it [political consumerism] is, in a way, a very democratic tool […]. It is something everyone can do; it is very democratic in that sense.

IPV4: Political consumerism is definitely an important part of the participation repertoire. […]. What is written in party programs, and what motions are tabled is important, but it is also important what we do in our daily lives. Definitely. […]. Political consumerism is an integral part of this [democracy]. Without doubt … without it, I don't know where we would end up.

The other position was characterised by scepticism. Although claimed to play an additional role in the participation repertoire and to sometimes contribute to political repercussions, important drawbacks related to, inter alia, over-emphasised individual responsibility and exclusion of economically weak individuals from engagement were argued to potentially outweigh the benefits of political consumerist activities.

IPV3: The benefits of it [political consumerism] don't outweigh the fact that the movement might lose groups of people who should be in the same movement, people who share the same political ideas and opinions but who are left out [from political consumerist activities].

IPV2: There are many in my party who believe in consumer power but in general I would say we prefer to address structures rather than individuals. I don't say it [political consumerism] is a bad thing, but this is not something we can solve individually, I think we need larger measures.

IPV3: In the end it's a question of who the key player in a democratic society should be. If corporations, by overtrumping other corporations, are to be key players, then we approve of a certain understanding of society which is, in my opinion, associated with major problems […].

When addressing political consumerism in relation to the issue of responsibilisation, representatives’ accounts were again defined by two opposing positions: on one side were those who considered political consumerism to strengthen democratic quality by the virtues of increased responsibility and enhanced responsiveness among political actors. On the other side were those who, by presenting political consumerism as a reflection of a responsibilised market, rather considered political consumerism to undermine core functions of representative democracy by impeding political responsibility.

IPV2: We [The Left Party] emphasize the collective rather than individuals. We need to act together, and therefore I repeat the importance of a responsible state and society. In my opinion, we must impose liability on the state rather than blaming individuals for choosing the wrong products.

IPV3: There is a substantial risk of reduced pressure on politicians if the individual responsibility to act in a certain way in terms of consumption is overemphasized, then there is less pressure placed on politicians to change the ways in which we produce these things in the first place. […]

In contrast, the position in favour considered political consumerism as a mode of political action which can breed responsibility among representatives:

IPV4: I would not say it [political consumerism] reduces politicians’ responsibility. […]. I am happy to see individuals taking responsibility themselves, and I am not concerned that if they do, politics would retire, no … rather the opposite. I rather believe it encourages politicians to listen to citizens’ needs and concerns. I see it as a revitalization of society and democracy.

IPV1: Either nothing happens because no one takes responsibility. I wouldn't say political consumerism rules out political decisions. These things can operate in parallel. If a larger group starts acting in a certain way, then it helps politics to make decisions. It is not the case that the responsibility is placed somewhere else, but rather, when politics is not taking responsibility, because that is the alternative, then these activities are performed to demonstrate that politics must be responsible.

Drawing from the above quotes, the interpretation drawn is that the development of responsibilisation is not deemed problematic but rather necessary to strengthen democracy in a society where politics and politicians have withdrawn from responsibility. More than an individual action for change, political consumerism seems, in line with what is pointed out in the literature (Hysing, 2019; Stolle, 2013), to be considered a tool that originates from a vacuum of responsibility and action left by politicians – a tool, in the words of IPV1, used to ‘demonstrate that politics must be responsible’.

All in all, assessments of political consumerism in relation to the functioning of representative democracy amongst interviewees from the Left Party were reportedly defined by two opposing positions: one recognising this mode of engagement as a strengthening democratic tool and one, in stark contrast, considering political consumerism a participation form which rather undermines political responsibility and accountability. The later, critical view was seemingly rooted in criticism towards the new governance landscape and its associated emphasis on the individual, dispersal of power and responsibility, as well as the mixing of economic and political spheres. The perception that political consumerism runs counter with democratic ideals thus seems to spring from a critique of a neoliberal rationale and its associated governance ramifications. Interestingly, while the critical perspective drew from an understanding of political consumerism as originated from, and linked to a neoliberal rationale, the opposing position seemed to consider this mode of engagement rather as a reaction to the same. In keeping with the interpretation made in the previous section, this accentuates different views of market-oriented participation in relation to the functioning of representative democracy, including the issue of responsibilisation. These results, suggesting contrasting attitudes within the Left Party, nuance the consensus observed in the quantitative study where a vast majority unanimously indicated they consider political consumerism effective and desirable. These observed internal tensions point to potentially different understandings of consumer-based political participation within the Left Party, accentuating disagreements on the market as a place for political engagement within representative democracy, as well as the role of elected representatives within the same.

The Moderate Party

Among the Moderate Party's representatives, the attitudes were, in contrast to what was shown in the quantitative phase, universally favourable of political consumerism, argued among the interviewees to be a ‘superior form of power’ and to have the capacity to breed individuals’ direct influence. The approval was seemingly based on the advocacy of the free market, with its associated emphasis on freedom, the centrality of the individual, and the alleged inherent power in individual actions and freedom of choice. As was formulated by two of the interviewees:

IPM1: It [political consumerism] is a means of exercising power which is great […]. It is a very dynamic way of communicating what kind of society you want.

IPM4: I think consumer power is the superior form of power. In fact, it's the most important form of power. By this means you can circumvent politics and legislation and exert direct influence. You can directly vent your opinions so to speak.

However, as reflected in the bellow quote, political consumerism appears to be recognised as a means for individuals to directly influence corporations and the market, rather than as a mode of citizen participation directed towards the political sphere. While representatives from the Left Party recognised political consumerism as an activist, political tool, used to influence political actors, representatives from the Moderate Party seemingly considered market-oriented participation as an individual mode of action, used to make individual and informed choices, and performed to influence the marketplace. Succinctly expressed, within the Moderate Party, political consumerism is potentially accepted as consumption affecting the market, not as politics affecting the political. As expressed by IPM1:

IPM1: In my party we relate to political consumerism as a fact rather than as a mode of political participation. We don't really discuss it in terms of political engagement. […]. It is the way in which the will of the people can have an impact on business without state control […]. When it comes to businesses, I think it [political consumerism] can have a large impact.

Relatedly, representatives from the Moderate Party argued political consumerism to be inferior to representational politics and conventional democratic modes of engagement. At its best, market-oriented engagement was recognised as a complement to the representative democratic process which was deemed to surpass political consumerist activities in terms of democratic potential:

IPM1: Political consumerism can be an important complement, in particular if performed on a broad basis. But we cannot allow this form of participation to hollow out the democratic representative system … which is the foundation that ensures that all voices are heard.

IPM2: Political consumerism can help raise peoples’ awareness. I think it's positive that people become increasingly aware, but in order to enhance our democracy I would say it's important it [political consumerism] doesn't rule out other forms of democratic processes.

When addressing potential issues related to responsibilisation, the risk of sliding with the democratic value of equal political rights was brought to the fore.¹¹ What representatives primarily opposed was the rationale of ‘minority rule’ on which political consumerism was allegedly based. Since even minuscule shares of the population, in this case, a group of consumers, may pursue their way and exert considerable influence through consumer choice, outcomes were argued to be less representative and to potentially challenge the democratic value of equal participation and political rights.

IPM3: Rather than enhancing democracy, it [political consumerism] might impede democracy by allowing only a few people to share their views and engage in the decision-making process. I don't think that's a good thing.

IPM1: Political consumerism can be inherently unequal in terms of participation. I believe there is a large group of citizens who do not use this [political consumerism] to make their voices heard. […] I am a strong supporter of the representative democracy since it's the only democratic functioning that can guarantee their voices. It's the only process that can guarantee democracy. […]. When it comes to political consumerism, it is the most vocal who exert impact … but they are not necessarily in majority; even a small fraction of people can have a dramatic impact upon minor issues. […]. I am worried that people who are not elected to represent the public gets a disproportionally large impact on political decision-making.

Moreover, political consumerism was arguably linked to the specific issue of responsibilisation. There seemed to be a concern that political consumerism places too much responsibility on citizens who are wrongly rendered accountable while politicians should, as was expressed by IPM3, ‘take full responsibility’:

IPM3: I feel that … in this case you blame the citizens if things go wrong which is … I would say it's better if politicians take full responsibility.

Interestingly, one of the representatives drew a clear distinction between the two forms of political consumerism, boycott and buycott. In terms of ideology, buycott was argued to be more consistent with the Moderate Party's approach to citizen participation than boycott. Since buycotts represent support for certain products or corporations, while boycott is rather characterised by disapproval or resistance for the same, the former was arguably in line with, while the latter was considered at odds with the Moderate Party's view of citizen participation and political activity. As expressed in the following quote:

IPM3: Yes, I would argue that my party is in favour of the positive form of political consumerism, buycott. […]. Boycott is … it doesn't generate discussions or debates, it is very odd, I think. Buycott is more in line with the Moderate Party's view on citizen participation, it creates a better ground for discussion [compared to boycott]. […] Buycott is a great form of participation, it is very clear, but boycott I don't know … To support is a good thing […] Buycott is about reaching out, to show support … but boycotts are more about … it is very black and white, or just black … It is all about refusing and rejecting.

Drawing from this, it seems like boycott is considered to represent an excessively rigid, confrontational and non-negotiable position – a form of engagement that, in contrast to the more cooperational buycotts, is considered to constitute a no-driven approach to political action. The interpretation can be drawn that a pro-market logic drives the formation of this attitude. Following the same rationale, in terms of democratic quality, boycotts were emphasised as particularly problematic:

IPM3: In my opinion, political consumerism does not enhance democratic values. When it comes to boycotting, it is based on pure resistance and protest while discussion and debate are not promoted, which, according to me, is not beneficial for the democratic system … There are no democratic conversations or debates related to these activities … It [boycott] does not bring democracy forward in my opinion.

This distinction drawn between boycott and buycott could potentially serve as a partial explanation for the attitudinal differences observed in the statistical analysis among representatives from the Moderate Party. Recalling that representatives from the Left Party did not address the two forms separately, and when asked if they consider the two forms differently, the informants answered in the negative.

Taken together, while representatives from the Left Party were divided in their attitudes towards political consumerism in relation to the functioning of representative democracy, both recognising and rejecting its democratic potential, interview partners from the Moderate Party were unanimous in their critique of the democratic quality of market-oriented participation. While highly supported as a non-political, complementary market tool, political consumerism was argued to challenge the core functions of representative democracy when perceived as political. Politics is preferably performed within the confines of representative democracy and by means provided within the democratic system. Since political consumerism is conducted in the market sphere and separated from the political arena, it is not supported as politics per se. This view is seemingly based on the perception of the representative democracy as the only system that can guarantee the legitimacy of a democratic process, including citizens’ political rights. My findings hereby indicate, alongside a quest to separate politics from the market¹², a reluctance to the development of responsibilisation whereby individual citizens are assigned responsibility while representative politics withdraws from the same. In other words, it seems that representatives from the Moderate Party seek to preserve the ‘vertical’ mode of politics whereby responsibility and accountability are placed in the hands of elected representatives.

Discussion

Representatives’ attitudes towards market-oriented participation have not been studied in previous research. The fact that a majority of elected representatives normatively support political consumerism is an important finding since it reveals the market as a desirable venue for political action, as well as consumer-based activity as an idealised tool for citizen participation among politicians in Sweden. Yet, and interestingly, the results observed in the succeeding, qualitative phase of the study nuance the picture that emerged from the statistical analysis,¹³ showing that issues related to the representative system, including the problem of responsibilisation, is recognised in both parties.

The problematising accounts of political consumerism emphasised by representatives are reportedly linked to the understanding of the interplay between the market and the political. However, as above-described, representatives relate to this dimension in a more complex way than suggested in the literature: the Left Party do not necessarily reject the market as a place for democratic citizen participation, and the Moderate Party, on their part, seem to question the democratic quality of market-oriented engagement. Moreover, the two parties seem to disagree as to whether this mode constitutes a political tool, or rather, a means to influence the market without political claims. Thus, although political consumerism, as suggested by the name, combines the two rationales of the market and the political, the two parties seem to understand and relate to them differently.

The observations made in this article have potential implications for the role of elected representatives. The results accentuate a reliance on the market as an appropriate arena for political engagement among representatives – a reliance which, as theorised in the current article, potentially risk altering the role of elected representatives. Different potential implications can be discerned: if accepting the position undertaken by representatives from the Moderate Party, accepting political consumerism as a non-political tool, but who suggest that it may challenge the representative democracy, one could expect a political role that seeks to address political subjects and consumers separately, in other words, to not encourage citizens to act politically in the marketplace, and to protect the market from political interference. If accepting the Left Party's position in favour of political consumerism, arguing political consumerism to strengthen democratic quality and to facilitate political decisions and actions, one could expect a political role that encourages consumers to not only act responsible in the marketplace – but also, as argued by one of the representatives, to help ‘politics make decisions’. This position, I propose, point to a development whereby the role of elected representatives as responsible political actors is potentially altered. When politicians not only recognise the market as an arena for citizen engagement – but also assign responsibility to consumers rather than citizens – we could potentially witness an increasingly consumer-oriented role of politicians whereby representatives undertake to ‘influence’ consumers in the marketplace, rather than engaging citizens in the political sphere.

Concluding Remarks

The aim of this study was to investigate how political representatives perceive political consumerism in relation to the functioning of representative democracy. The article makes two kinds of contributions: empirical and theoretical. Empirically, it contributes by demonstrating that a majority of elected representatives in Sweden consider political consumerism an effective as well as a desirable mode of citizen engagement, thus pointing to a reliance on the market as an appropriate venue for citizen participation. I have also shown that party affiliation is a significant determinant of attitudes towards political consumerism, suggesting that representatives from the Left Party show significantly more normative support of political consumerism as well as perceived effectiveness of the same when compared to parties to the right. In the qualitative study, the picture becomes more complex, showing that democratic perils related to responsibilisation is recognised as potentially challenging to representative democracy. Internal tensions are observed within the Left Party, showing that one group considers political consumerism to strengthen representative democracy, while the other rejects market-oriented participation as a mode that, in contradistinction, rather undermines its core functions. These categories do not apply to the Moderate Party. Since political consumerism is not considered a part of the representative system, or even accepted as political per se, it can either strengthen or undermine its democratic functions. When considered political, it is rather perceived as a form of engagement that challenges the core functions of the representative system. When considered market oriented, however, political consumerism is perceived a complementary tool used to circumvent the often slow and ineffective political sphere.

Theoretically, the article contributes by considering the potential altered role of elected representatives as responsible political actors in a society where politics is partly performed within the market sphere. In a society where politicians not only rely on the market as a venue for citizen participation – but also assign responsibility to consumers rather than citizens – the role of elected representatives may come to resemble that of influencers, seeking to influence consumers in the marketplace, rather than engaging citizens in the political sphere. This development might in turn imply a challenge to the premises for political participation within the representative system, but also to the legitimacy of representative democracy writ large. This theoretical perspective, thus far overlooked in the literature, I propose merit more careful consideration.

To better grasp the role of politicians and the conditions under which they operate in a society where politics is performed in the market sphere, I recommend future research to consider the dimension between market and politics. Future investigation may consider survey experiments that provides different definitions of political consumerism that highlights different aspects relating to the dimension between the market and the political. Such an approach, I suggest, would provide a nuanced understanding of representatives’ views on political consumerism in relation to the functioning of representative democracy, including their role as responsible political actors and should be considered by researchers who are interested not only in political consumerism but in the link between representative and represented within a sphere that combines the logic of the market and the political.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Elin Alfredsson Malmros

Elin Alfredsson Malmros is a PhD student at the Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg. Her research interest concerns representative democracy and the linkage between elected representatives and the represented. E-mail: [email protected]

Notes

1 Sweden Democrats are often underrepresented as participants in social science research. In the 2017 annual KOLFU survey (Karlsson & Gilljam, 2017) (a survey study addressing all elected politicians in Sweden's 290 municipalities and 20 counties/regions), only a minority of the party's representatives (47%) participated, while the corresponding figure for the Left Party and the Moderate Party was 70 and 65%, respectively. While this fact is to be considered a general problem and challenge, it does not harm the validity of the current study, the main argument being that the Sweden Democrats doesn't constitute the main object of study in this article.

2 This approach is in line with most studies within political consumerist research. As underscored by Zorell (2018), although many studies recognize the two sides (buycott and boycott), most of them treat political consumerism as one single variable in their analysis.

3 Recalling that the sequence of the questions was randomized in order to counteract order effects.

4 The choice made to study respondents’ absolute attitudes to political consumerism was based on the quest to eliminate any preconceptions or biased understandings of political consumerism that could result from a relative understanding of the concept, as well as the ambition to study political consumerism in relation to the functioning of the representative democracy, and not as a part of a citizen participation repertoire.

5 This finding echoes the results presented by Gilljam et al. (2012) who showed that ideology is a central factor in explaining representatives’ attitudes towards non-institutionalized participation.

6 Although the gender factor has been challenged in the US context (Baek, 2010), most studies suggest that women, highly educated, and younger generations engage more actively in political consumerist practices (Koos, 2012; Newman & Bartels, 2011; Stolle et al., 2005). Yet, differences between socio-demographic characteristics are small: men have reached almost the same level of involvement as women, and younger generations are marginally more likely to engage in political consumerist activities when compared to their older contemporaries (Zorell, 2018). Education appears to be a factor of greater relevance: when compared with lower levels of education, it seems as if the higher educated are more inclined to engage in political consumerism (Stolle, 2013).

7 Since representatives to the right demonstrated divergent attitudes in the quantitative phase in which the broad definition was applied, another conceptual dimension was added to the analysis to see whether it could contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the divergent picture that emerged from the statistical analysis.

8 All interviewees agreed to the use of recording.

9 The decision to interview representatives from the Moderate Party and not another party to the right was based on the fact that representatives from the Moderate Party demonstrated the least favourable attitudes towards political consumerism among market-liberal parties to the right in the survey (see Table 1). In other words, drawing from what is suggested in the literature, the Moderate Party represents the party that deviated the most from the view that would be expected from a right-wing party. The decision to interview representatives from the Left Party was simply based on their leftist orientation, but also the results observed in the statistical analysis, suggesting a normative support that conflicts with what is suggested in the normative literature. The choice to interview representatives from one right-wing and one left-wing party respectively was due to the limited time frame of the study.

10 Importantly, incongruencies did not only appear across groups – incongruent, and at times conflicting arguments were put forward also by the same individual.

11 This assertion should be considered in relation to what was suggested by one of the interviewees in the Left Party, arguing political consumerism to rather enhance equality in terms of political rights among citizens.

12 Important to note is that while unanimous in their ambition to separate the political sphere and the market arena, the critical position within the Left Party seemingly subscribes to a market-critical perspective, whereas representatives from the Moderate Party rather seek to protect the market from political influences.

13 This indicates that the two studies complement each other and hence the conclusion can be drawn that studies on this theme benefit from a mixed-method approach.

Appendix

Table A1. Overview of informants.

1	IPV1	Member of KU	The Left party	2021-04-15
2	IPV2	Acting member of KU	The Left Party	2021-04-28
3	IPV3	Acting member of KU	The Left Party	2021-05-05
4	IPV4	Acting member of JuU	The Left Party	2021-05-14
5	IPM1	Member of KU	The Moderate Party	2021-04-19
6	IPM2	Member of KU	The Moderate Party	2021-04-27
7	IPM3	Member of KU	The Moderate Party	2021-05-17
8	IPM4	Member of CU	The Moderate Party	2021-05-18

KU = Konstitutionsutskottet (The Committee on the Constitution); JuU = Justitieutskottet (The Committee on Justice); CU = Civilutskottet (The Committee on Civil Affairs).

Table A2. Attitudes towards political consumerism among elected representatives in Sweden (OLS).

	Normative support (OLS)		Perceived effectiveness (OLS)
	Model 1a	Model 2a	Model 1b	Model 2b
Swedish Social Democratic Party	−0.092* (0.036)	−0.065* (0.039)	0.042 (0.064)	0.041 (0.068)
Green Party	0.002 (0.047)	0.014 (0.051)	0.129 (0.084)	0.143 (0.090)
Centre Party	−0.138** (0.045)	−0.135** (0.048)	0.006 (0.078)	0.034 (0.082)
Liberals	−0.232*** (0.045)	−0.228*** (0.047)	−0.211** (0.079)	−0.196* (0.084)
Moderate Party	−0.420*** (0.039)	−0.393*** (0.041)	−0.435*** (0.069)	−0.408*** (0.072)
Christian Democrats	−0.305*** (0.055)	−0.297*** (0.057)	−0.323*** (0.097)	−0.278*** (0.099)
Sweden Democrats	−0.420*** (0.063)	−0.412*** (0.067)	−0.494*** (0.111)	−0.529*** (0.116)
Age (>30 ref.)		−0.014 (0.009)		0.039* (0.015)
Education (Low education ref.)		0.008 (0.007)		−0.026* (0.013)
Gender (1 = Female)		−0.000 (0.022)		0.157*** (0.039)
Member of Parliament		0.086* (0.049)		0.058 (0.085)
Intercept	0.962*** (0.031)	0.962*** (0.073)	2.994*** (0.054)	2.899*** (0.127)
N	1235	1078	1324	1158
R^2	0.14	0.14	0.08	0.09

Notes: Entities are unstandardised coefficients of OLS regressions with standard error in paratheses.

Levels of significance *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Source: Swedish Panel of Politicians (Politikerpanelen) 2020.

Table A3. Attitudes towards political consumerism among elected representatives in Sweden (logit and ordered logit regressions).

	Normative support (logistic regression)		Perceived effectiveness (ordered logit regression)
	Model 1a	Model 2a	Model 1b	Model 2b
Swedish Social Democratic Party	−1.323** (0.445)	−1.048* (0.455)	0.136 (0.188)	0.121 (0.203)
Green Party	0.048 (0.657)	0.628 (0.828)	0.426* (0.249)	0.476* (0.272)
Centre Party	−1.672*** (0.475)	−1.591*** (0.484)	0.124 (0.230)	0.211 (0.247)
Liberals	−2.227*** (0.459)	−2.121*** (0.467)	−0.589* (0.232)	−0.551* (0.250)
Moderate Party	−3.050*** (0.436)	−2.856*** (0.441)	−1.191*** (0.203)	−1.149*** (0.217)
Christian Democrats	−2.612*** (0.487)	−2.473*** (0.497)	−0.844*** (0.274)	−0.732* (0.290)
Sweden Democrats	−3.051*** (0.507)	−2.939*** (0.524)	−1.293*** (0.331)	−1.410*** (0.359)
Age (>30 ref.)		−0.110* (0.065)		0.113* (0.046)
Education (Low education ref.)		0.057 (0.054)		−0.090* (0.040)
Gender (1 = Female)		−0.002 (0.158)		0.475*** (0.118)
Member of Parliament		0.718* (0.412)		0.166 (0.247)
– Log-likelihood	558.949	475.635	1341.576	1152.411
N	1235	1078	1324	1158

Notes: Values of cut points to ordered logistic regression and constants for logistic regression are omitted.

Source: 2020 Panel of Politicians (Politikerpanelen).