Comentarios de autores de artículos:
Lupia & Matsusaka

Arthur Lupia & John G. Matsusaka answers a few questions about this month's emerging research front in field of Social Sciences, general:
Social Sciences, general
Article: Direct democracy: New approaches to old questions
Authors: Lupia, A; Matsusaka, JG
Journals: ANNU REV POLIT SCI 10 2004, 7: 463-482 2004
Addresses:
Univ Michigan, Ctr Polit Studies, 426 Thompson St, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA.
Univ Michigan, Ctr Polit Studies, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA.
Univ So Calif, Marshall Sch Business, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA.

Why do you think your paper is highly cited?
Our paper is a survey of recent research on direct democracy, specifically the use of initiatives and referendums that allow citizens to make laws directly without involving their elected representatives. One reason for interest in the paper is the growing importance of direct democracy in the United States and across the world. Another reason is that on some of the most fundamental questions about direct democracy, the emerging science tends to challenge the conventional wisdom.

Does it describe a new discovery or a new methodology that’s useful to others?
Until recently, direct democracy scholarship was primarily descriptive or normative. Much of it sought to highlight the shortcomings of citizen lawmaking. One of themes of our paper is how new research that takes a more scientific perspective has significantly transformed our understanding of direct democracy.
The new research exploits the increasing sophistication of econometrics and the advent of low-cost computing that make it possible to work with large data sets, isolate key effects, and establish robust relations, as well as the development of powerful new theoretical tools—including formal modeling—that allow more sophisticated examination of direct democracy’s strategic, informational, and policy-related aspects.

Could you summarize the significance of your paper in layman’s terms?
In writing the paper, we felt there were two important general lessons from the recent research. The first, on methods, is that research employing scientific methods can lead to significantly different conclusions than what introspection, casual intuition, or descriptive studies suggest.
The other, more substantive, is that the new research paints a comparatively positive picture of initiatives and referendums. In particular, voters appear to be more competent and the relation between money and power less pernicious than many observers allege.

How did you become involved in this research, and were there successes or failures along the way?
Beginning in the early 1990s, scholars began to revisit a variety of specific issues concerning direct democracy using scientific tools—theoretical and empirical—that were just becoming available. The paper grows out of that broad agenda to put our knowledge of direct democracy on a more sound scientific footing.

If applicable, what are the social or political implications of your research?
The research discussed in the paper suggests that direct democracy tends to work better than many critics allege. Voters appear to be able to make sophisticated decisions in the voting booth. Moneyed interests do not appear to be able to buy favorable laws using ballot propositions.
Direct democracy does not seem to favor organized and wealthy special interests, but makes policy more responsive to the will of the majority. It is too early to draw definitive conclusions about all aspects of direct democracy, but the overall picture of citizen lawmaking seems fairly positive based on what we currently know.

Arthur Lupia
Professor, Department of Political Science and Institute for Social Research
Principal Investigator, The American National Election Studies
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI, USA

John G. Matsusaka
Professor, Marshall School of Business & School of Law
President, Initiative and Referendum Institute
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA,