CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 188Political Theory and DemocracyPolitical Philosophy and EthicsGame Theory and Voting Systems

Voting with your feet: Exit-based empowerment in democratic theory

WARREN, MARK E.·2011·American Political Science Review
DOI 10.1017/s0003055411000323
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Democracy is about including those who are potentially affected by collective decisions in making those decisions. For this reason, contemporary democratic theory primarily assumes membership combined with effective voice. An alternative to voice is exit: Dissatisfied members may choose to leave a group rather than voice their displeasure. Rights and capacities for exit can function as low-cost, effective empowerments, particularly for those without voice. But because contemporary democratic theory often dismisses exit as appropriate only for economic markets, the democratic potentials of exit have rarely been theorized. Exit-based empowerments should be as central to the design and integrity of democracy as distributions of votes and voice, long considered its key structural features. When they are integrated into other democratic devices, exit-based empowerments should generate and widely distribute usable powers for those who need them most, evoke responsiveness from elites, induce voice, discipline monopoly, and underwrite vibrant and pluralistic societies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0003055411000323

Cites

130 of 130 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Edwards, 2009, Civil Society
  2. Kant, 1991, Political Writings, 237
  3. Montanaro Laura . 2008. “The Democratic Legitimacy of ‘Self-authorized’ Representatives.” Presented at a workshop entitled “Representation,” Princeton University Center for Human Values, December 5.
  4. Rawls, 1993, Political Liberalism
  5. Hayek, 1944, The Road to Serfdom
  6. Olson, 1971, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Good and the Theory of Groups
  7. Mill, 1982, On Liberty
  8. Dowding, 1996, Consumption Matters, 36
  9. Locke, 1993, Political Writings of John Locke, 390
  10. Smith, 1994, The Wealth of Nations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
WARREN, M. E.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
WARREN, MARK E.
ORCID
WARREN, MARK E.
Venue
American Political Science Review
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2011-10-18
Volume
105
Issue
4
Pages
683-701
ISSN
  • 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5943
DOI
10.1017/s0003055411000323
OpenAlex
W2118437808
Semantic Scholar
0a041868cd20deab592b54cc2cae229989fbd7d2
Cited by
188
References
130
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
35.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
Keywords
exit, democratic theory, membership, political participation, democratic legitimacy, pluralism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review