My Research
My research agenda crosses traditional subfield lines to examine how citizens can be empowered to affect constitutional change, with a particular focus on questions of democratic legitimacy. Using quantitative, qualitative, and experimental methods, I critically assess the benefits and limits of participatory democracy as well as the influence of social capital in constitutional processes. In doing so, I look specifically at citizen engagement with constitutional and judicial structures, assessing the dialogical relationship between institutional design, citizen behavior, and political culture. My work has been published in the American Political Science Review, Electoral Studies, and Constitutional Studies and includes book projects with both Cambridge and Oxford University Press.
My work also involves the cross-national analysis of democratic representation. In doing so, my research seeks to understand how the concept of democratic representation has transformed in recent decades as countries have experimented with new mechanisms of citizen representation, such as the increasing use of referendums, deliberative mini-publics, and intra-party democracy, in response to what scholars have described a growing legitimacy crisis facing representative institutions. Ultimately, more work needs to be done to determine if these inclusive processes heighten the legitimacy of political outcomes, improve satisfaction in democracy, and contribute to the stability of a political order. In seeking to address these gaps in the literature, my research assesses both the benefits and limits of participatory democratic mechanisms and demonstrates that if citizens are encouraged to engage in political processes in a way that fosters genuine deliberation and increases representation, democratic outcomes can gain greater legitimacy in the eyes of the public. So too, the increase in social and political trust that emerges from such processes can facilitate further change, bringing political elites and the people into a larger conversation about the identity of the state and the nature constitutional justice.
Publications
Trust the Process: Procedural Legitimacy and Citizen Participation in Constitutional Change, Accepted for Publication - Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties
Procedural legitimacy is a critical component of democratic governance. Nowhere is the production of legitimacy more important than in the area of constitutional transformation, where lawmakers and citizens seek to create “higher law.” This study tests the impact of citizen inclusion in the constitutional amendment process on the legitimacy of constitutional change through the use of a survey experiment conducted in the United States. In doing so, I separate the processes of amendment initiation and ratification, examining the role of legislatures, referendums, and citizens' assemblies in the amendment process. I find that citizen participation in any stage of the amendment process will produce higher levels of sociological legitimacy when compared to legislative-only amendment processes. So too, citizens are more likely to expect a participatory process when the amendment represents a significant alteration of the constitutional text. Finally, I find that citizens with a higher level of political trust rate the legitimacy of a legislative-only amendment process higher than those with lower levels of political trust and citizens with a higher level of social trust rate the legitimacy of participatory amendment processes higher than those with a lower level of social trust.
Blake, William D., Joseph Francesco Cozza, David A. Armstrong II, and Amanda Friesen. 2023. “Social Capital, Institutional Rules, and Constitutional Amendment Rates.” American Political Science Review 1-9
Why are some constitutions amended more frequently than others? The literature provides few clear answers, as some scholars focus on institutional factors, while others emphasize amendment culture. We bridge this divide with new theoretical and empirical insights. Using data from democratic constitutions worldwide and US state constitutions, we examine how social capital reduces the transaction costs imposed by amendment rules. The results indicate that constitutional rigidity decreases amendment frequency, but group membership, civic activism, and political trust can offset the effect of amendment rules. Our findings have important implications for scholars in public law, constitutional and democratic theory, and social movements.
Cozza, Joseph Francesco. 2021. “Authorizing Revolutionary Constitutional Change: The Approximation Thesis.” Constitutional Studies 7: 157-192
This study examines how the amendment power can be used to legitimately produce a constitutional revolution, altering the core identity of a constitutional system. In doing so, I introduce the concept of the revolutionary amendment and discuss how such an amendment can achieve legitimacy in a constitutional system. Drawing on deliberative civic republican theory, I argue that the process of enactment must approximate the primary constituent power by fostering citizen representation and deliberation in both the drafting and ratification of the amendment. This Approximation Thesis can help determine when a revolutionary amendment will be seen as legitimate by the citizens of the state. This theoretical contribution is followed by case studies of contemporary constitutional revolutions in Ireland and the United Kingdom.
Cozza, Joseph Francesco, Zachary Elkins, and Alexander Hudson. 2021. “Reverse Mortgages and Aircraft Parts: The Arcane Referendum and the Limits of Citizen Competence.” Electoral Studies 74: 1-14
Whether from a sincere belief in the ability of the body politic to arrive at optimal decisions, or in an instrumental attempt to generate legitimacy for policy choices, a large number of jurisdictions use the referendum to settle political questions. This practice relies on assumptions about voter interest and competence that merit empirical testing. We conduct a series of survey experiments that leverage variation in wording from a set of arcane ballot provisions from elections in Texas. We find that (1) voters are largely confused about the meaning of such ballot provisions; (2) efforts to improve the wording of such provisions and educate voters has minimal impact on their comprehension; (3) voters are easily persuaded to change their vote when given the chance; and (4) voters rely heavily on default answers (especially “yes”) in casting their votes. On the whole, the evidence suggests that narrow referendum questions that lack clear ideological or informational cues overwhelm the limits of citizen competence, and are thus likely to result in unstable and unreliable decisions.
Cozza, Joseph Francesco and Zeynep Somer-Topcu. 2021. “Membership Vote for Party Leadership Changes: Electoral Effects and the Causal Mechanisms Behind.” Electoral Studies 71: 1-12
Political parties in parliamentary democracies have increasingly democratized their leadership selection processes, incorporating the votes of party members. Despite generating numerous headlines, there has been a relative dearth of cross-national scholarly work on the electoral effects of selectorate expansion and the causal mechanisms behind them. This study fills this gap in the literature. Using observational data from eleven parliamentary democracies, we show that expanding the selectorate to include a vote of party members increases parties' polling performance but does not affect electoral performance. Nevertheless, our cross-national analyses and results from a survey experiment from Australia suggest that incorporating members generates excitement, demonstrates an openness to new ideas, and can be a signal of leader work ethic and a commitment to the democratic process, increasing leader legitimacy. We discuss the disconnect between these positive evaluations and the lack of electoral effects, and suggest possible strategies for parties to improve their electoral standing.
Book Projects
Revolutionary Constitutional Amendment: Constituent Power and Conditions of Legitimacy, Revise & Resubmit - Oxford University Press
This book examines how the amendment power can be used to legitimately produce a constitutional revolution, altering the core identity of a constitutional system. First, I create a novel conceptual scheme for identifying and classifying revolutionary amendments. Drawing on civic republican theory, I then argue that the process of enacting revolutionary amendments must approximate the primary constituent power by fostering citizen representation and deliberation in both the drafting and ratification of the amendment. In this way, the amendment can make a claim to a new popular sovereignty independent of the existing document. This theory, which I call the Approximation Thesis, can help determine when a revolutionary amendment will be seen as a legitimate constitutional change by the citizens of the state. Subsequent chapters provide empirical support for this theory. In doing so, I conduct in-depth case studies of revolutionary constitutional change in France, Ireland, Israel, Kenya, and the United Kingdom. Finally, I conduct experimental analysis in the United States to test the impact of participatory amendment procedures on the legitimacy of constitutional change, both ordinary and revolutionary.
The Social Foundations of Constitutional Innovation, Under Contract - Cambridge University Press Comparative Political Behavior Elements Series
Co-Authors: William Blake and David Armstrong
This book analyzes the social determinants of constitutional innovation. In doing so, we examine whether the behavioral effects of social capital affect the performance of world constitutions, one of the most fundamental institutions in the democratic world. Our cross-sectional, longitudinal, experimental, and qualitative analyses of global constitutional amendment processes reach similar conclusions: social capital provides a necessary but not a sufficient condition for constitutional amendments. While low social capital levels are strongly associated with infrequent amendment, we do not claim high social capital levels lead to high amendment rates. A set of idiosyncratic factors may ultimately determine the success of any specific amendment proposal, but these factors may only come into play when a polity is trusting and participatory. In other words, by reducing transaction costs, social capital creates an environment more conducive to constitutional reform.
Explaining Cross-National Differences in Political Interest: The Role of Partisan and Ideological Cues
Co-Authors: Seonghui Lee and Randolph T. Stevenson
This book analyzes cross-national differences in reported levels of political interest. We begin by presenting the first comprehensive map of political interest over a large number of national populations over time. The data demonstrate that political interest varies significantly cross-nationally but much less so across time within any given country. We then show that measurement error and differences in the availability of individual resources cannot explain this cross-national variation. Next, we posit a new theoretical model of why any particular individual becomes more or less interested in politics. Drawing upon recent experimental work that has probed the “appraisal structure” of interest, we identify two appraisal dimensions that mediate whether an individual will respond to a given situation with the emotion of interest: a “collative” dimension and a comprehensibility or “coping potential” dimension. We argue that adding a formal consideration of the role of heuristics to existing appraisal theories of interest is essential when they are applied to explain interest in politics – where there is a long history of work showing that individuals can both pay little attention to politics and nevertheless use a few simple cues (like party and ideology) to successfully navigate the political world. Finally, we offer an experimental evaluation of our contribution to the evolving theory of interest as an emotion – i.e., whether the availability of heuristics can increase the appraised comprehensibility of a message and (consequently) interest in it and test some of the and macro-implications of the theory across political contexts.
Working Papers
A Rainbow Ceiling? Sexual Orientation and Party Leader Legitimacy, Revise & Resubmit - British Journal of Political Science
Co-Author: Gonzalo Di Landro, Andrea Aldrich, and Zeynep Somer-Topcu
While recent scholarship has provided a window into how individuals evaluate queer legislators and candidates for elected office, few studies have examined voter evaluations of queer individuals in positions of political leadership. This study evaluates public perceptions of queer party leaders, with a focus on leader legitimacy. Results from a conjoint experiment in the UK indicate that queer leaders are perceived to be less legitimate than straight leaders and that queer men and women face similar penalties. This finding holds regardless of the queer leader's level of legislative experience. Additionally, the parties that queer politicians lead are perceived to be more left-wing than those led by straight politicians. Finally, right-wing voters, and those who hold homophobic views are more likely to penalize queer leaders.
The Consequences of Party Leader Elections for Elected Leaders' Legitimacy Evaluations
Co-Author: Zeynep Somer-Topcu and Gonzalo Di Landro
Previous research has shown that expanding the leadership selectorate to include party members increases the number of candidates and the competitiveness of the leadership elections and, overall, improves procedural evaluations of leadership elections (Cozza and Somer-Topcu 2021). However, we do not know how leadership election competition affects voters' evaluations of a newly selected leader's deservingness, competency, effectiveness, and electoral viability, attributes which we argue contribute to perceptions of party leader legitimacy. Using data collected from a conjoint experiment fielded in the UK and cross-national survey data from across several advanced parliamentary democracies, we show that defeating a greater number of candidates and earning a higher margin of victory increases voter evaluations of a new leader’s legitimacy and increases leader likability. However, margin of victory is the strongest driver of new leader legitimacy. Thus, newly elected leaders can best claim a mandate for their position if they decisively defeat a larger field of rivals in a democratic election for the position
Participation, Gender, and Legitimacy in Party Leadership Selection
Co-Authors: Andrea Aldrich, Gonzalo Di Landro, and Zeynep Somer-Topcu
In political science, several experiments studying the effect of gender on candidate choice have identified a general preference for women candidates in electoral contests. However, women’s representation in politics continues to lag behind men’s in almost every setting, including the most prestigious positions of political leadership. In real world settings, a disconnect remains between this seeming preference for women and the actual selection of women as political leaders. Using observational data at the party level, we show that even when women are candidates for leadership, a strong preference remains for male leaders. However, once selected, women leaders perform just as well as men, if not better, under similar political conditions. To understand the relationship between gender and leadership, we explore how competition for leadership posts impacts the legitimacy of leaders and investigate whether this a gendered process. We first establish substantive legitimacy as the idea that leaders are viewed as having earned their positions, are strong enough to lead the party, will work hard on behalf of the party, and will help the party win. Then we test, in an experimental design, how gender and competition work together to impact the evaluation of leaders. We first test for differences in legitimacy across genders related to outright gender bias. Then we test how gender and legitimacy are mediated through the competitiveness of intraparty elections. We hypothesize that while men may be perceived as more substantively legitimate overall, women that win highly competitive contests will be perceived as more legitimate than men, having proved they can win these types contests.
How Gender Presentation Shapes Voter Evaluations of Queer Cabinet Ministers, Under Review
Co-Authors: Amanda Friesen, Philip Jones, and Tobias Rohrbach
Increasingly, scholars have focused their attention on how voters evaluate queer, trans, and gender non-conforming candidates for political office. Missing, however, is an examination of how voters evaluate queer individuals serving in party leadership and executive positions. Past research has documented the gendered pattern of cabinet appointments. In advanced democracies, women have frequently been appointed to lead ministries that oversee "feminine" or low-prestige policy areas. While this pattern has changed in recent years, the question remains: do queer politicians face similar barriers? In this project, we employ a conjoint survey experiment in the United Kingdom to assess how individuals evaluate queer and gender non-conforming cabinet ministers. In doing so, we examine whether queer cabinet ministers are punished for presenting as gender non-conforming and whether voter evaluations differ depending on the particular ministry they lead. To vary the degree to which these ministers conform to typical gender norms, we manipulate the hypothetical minister's sexual orientation, physical appearance, hobbies, and interests. We then explore how these factors affect perceptions of the minister's legitimacy, including their leadership qualities and support for their appointment.
Why Then and Not Now?: An Analysis of the Timing of US Constitutional Amendments
Co-Authors: William Blake and David Armstrong
We adopt a punctuated equilibrium framework to analyze the paucity and timing of amendments to the U.S. Constitution. While constitutions are generally th ought of as institutions that shape policy decisions, constitutions (and their amendments) also represent policy choices. We test five conditions that might prompt a punctuation: exogenous shocks, judicial dialogue, party dominance, ideological homogeneity, and social capital. In general, policy innovation is more likely when exogenous forces, like war or economic decline, create new demands (Easton 1953). Unpopular judicial decisions can also trigger new demands on the constitutional system (Clark 2010). Furthermore, policy-making systems become more responsive when transaction costs are more manageable, like when one party holds a larger majority in Congress or when polarization does not prevent the formation of cross-party coalitions. Likewise, social capital spurs policy innovation (Putnam 1993, 82-120; Putnam 2000, 346-47), mitigates transaction costs (Fukuyama 1995), and is associated with constitutional amendment frequency (Blake et al. n.d.). Our analysis will leverage data on amendment introductions in Congress since 1789, v otes on proposed amendments in Congress since 1789, and state ratifications of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment.
Participatory Constitution Making and the Protection of Minority Rights
Co-Authors: Anna Fruhstorfer and Olga Leshchenko
In this project, we analyze the relationship between participatory constitution-making and the protection of minority rights. In doing so, we show that direct democratic measures have a differential effect on the constitutionalization of minority rights. While public participation does affect the probability for rights that guarantee power sharing provisions, the same measures have no effect on the probability for rights that protect group autonomy. This points to a complex interaction between the type of minority right, the expectation about its actual enforcement, elite bargaining and direct democratic procedures. The article’s findings have important implications for understanding the relationship between political representation and the protection of vulnerable groups.