The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
DIRECT DEMOCRACY: New Approaches to Old Questions
Abstract
▪ Abstract Until recently, direct democracy scholarship was primarily descriptive or normative. Much of it sought to highlight the processes' shortcomings. We describe new research that examines direct democracy from a more scientific perspective. We organize the discussion around four “old” questions that have long been at the heart of the direct democracy debate: Are voters competent? What role does money play? How does direct democracy affect policy? Does direct democracy benefit the many or the few? We find that recent breakthroughs in theory and empirical analysis paint a comparatively positive picture of the initiative and referendum. For example, voters are more competent, and the relationship between money and power in direct democracy is less nefarious, than many observers allege. More new studies show that the mere presence of direct democracy induces sitting legislatures to govern more effectively.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Chakravarti, D., Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1997) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151869 · Cited by 7,141
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1 · Cited by 5,219
Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change
Marquart, F., & Naderer, B. (2016) · Schlüsselwerke der Medienwirkungsforschung · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-09923-7_20 · Cited by 4,993
What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters
Brooks, C., Carpini, M. X. D., & Keeter, S. (1997) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2655098 · Cited by 4,437
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993) · Cited by 1,915
Lupia, A. (1994) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2944882 · Cited by 1,850 · cited 2×
“As Lupia (1994), Gerber (1999), and Lupia & Johnston (2001) show, it also requires the endorsements of well-known public figures and evidence of broad grass-roots support.”
BackgroundThe democratic dilemma: can citizens learn what they need to know?
(1998) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.36-1262 · Cited by 1,827
Happiness, Economy and Institutions
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00570 · Cited by 1,577
Relying on the Information of Interested Parties
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1986) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/2555625 · Cited by 1,076
Farrell, J., & Rabin, M. (1996) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.10.3.103 · Cited by 1,012
Cited by
Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics
Goodin, R. E., & Dryzek, J. S. (2006) · Politics & Society · doi:10.1177/0032329206288152 · Cited by 984
Democratic innovations: designing institutions for citizen participation
(2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-5275 · Cited by 915
Altman, D. (2010) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511933950 · Cited by 537
Geographic Boundaries as Regression Discontinuities
Keele, L. J., & Titiunik, R. (2015) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpu014 · Cited by 391
Reconsidering the role of procedures for decision acceptance
Esaiasson, P., Persson, M., Gilljam, M., & Lindholm, T. (2019) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123416000508 · Cited by 223
Metadata
- Authors
- Lupia, A., & Matsusaka, J. G.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Political Science
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2004-05-17
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 463-482
- ISSN
- 1094-2939 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-1577
- OpenAlex
- W2112264840
- Cited by
- 408
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 30.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: DIRECT DEMOCRACY: New Approaches to Old Questions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104730
- The paper
- Lupia, A., & Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). DIRECT DEMOCRACY: New Approaches to Old Questions. Annual Review of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104730
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
