The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Disaffected democracies: what's troubling the trilateral countries?
Abstract
It is a notable irony that as democracy replaces other forms of governing throughout the world, citizens of the most established and prosperous democracies (the United States and Canada, Western European nations, and Japan) increasingly report dissatisfaction and frustration with their governments. Here, some of the most influential political scientists at work today examine why this is so in a volume unique in both its publication of original data and its conclusion that low public confidence in democratic leaders and institutions is a function of actual performance, changing expectations, and the role of information. The culmination of research projects directed by Robert Putnam through the Trilateral Commission and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, these papers present new data that allow more direct comparisons across national borders and more detailed pictures of trends within countries than previously possible. They show that citizen disaffection in the Trilateral democracies is not the result of frayed social fabric, economic insecurity, the end of the Cold War, or public cynicism. Rather, the contributors conclude, the trouble lies with governments and politics themselves. The sources of the problem include governments' diminished capacity to act in an interdependent world and a decline in institutional performance, in combination with new public expectations and uses of information that have altered the criteria by which people judge their governments. Although the authors diverge in approach, ideological affinity, and interpretation, they adhere to a unified framework and confine themselves to the last quarter of the twentieth century. This focus--together with the wealth of original research results and the uniform strength of the individual chapters--sets the volume above other efforts to address the important and increasingly international question of public dissatisfaction with democratic governance. This book will have obvious appeal for a broad audience of political scientists, politicians, policy wonks, and that still sizable group of politically minded citizens on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific.
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
Cited by
(2005) · Cited by 3,670
Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism
Bovens, M. (2010) · West European Politics · doi:10.1080/01402382.2010.486119 · Cited by 1,018
Who trusts: the origins of social trust in seven societies.
Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2003) · European Societies · doi:10.1080/1461669032000072256 · Cited by 628
Syndromes of corruption: wealth, power, and democracy
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-1760 · Cited by 447
Cook, T. E., & Gronke, P. (2005) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00339.x · Cited by 401
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2000-12-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 38-2377-38-2377
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W2064246962
- Cited by
- 944
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- 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: Disaffected democracies: what's troubling the trilateral countries? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.38-2377
- The paper
- Disaffected democracies: what's troubling the trilateral countries? (2000). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.38-2377
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.