Issue Responsiveness in Canadian Politics: Are Parties Responsive to the Public Salience of Climate Change in the Question Period?
Abstract
This paper explores how politicians respond to the public salience of policy issues when determining which topics to publicly address. Using new data and state-of-the-art methodology, our study provides a fresh perspective on this fundamental question. We focus on a multi-party parliamentary system, specifically the Canadian House of Commons, with a specific emphasis on the issue of climate change. To assess the attention given by political parties to various policy issues, we analyze transcripts from the Question Period spanning from April 2006 to June 2021. To gauge the public’s level of concern for these issues, we incorporate data obtained from Google Trends. Employing an instrumental variable estimation strategy, our study causally estimates the extent to which the public salience of climate change influences elite attention. Our findings reveal that the public salience of climate change significantly influences the attention given to this issue by parties, albeit with noticeable partisan variations. Moreover, our research highlights the effectiveness of the Question Period in compelling the government to address challenging or potentially embarrassing issues. Lastly, we uncover evidence suggesting that the Liberal Party of Canada successfully increased the public salience of climate change during its tenure in government.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
Data availability statement
The data and replication code for this article can be found at: https://github.com/jacobmorrier/Issue-Responsiveness.
References
Abercrombie G., Batista-Navarro R. 2020. “Sentiment and Position-Taking Analysis of Parliamentary Debates: A Systematic Literature Review.” Journal of Computational Social Science 3: 245–70.
Achen Christopher H., Bartels Larry M. 2017. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton University Press.
Barberá Pablo, Andreu Casas, Nagler Jonathan, Egan Patrick J., Bonneau Richard, Jost John T., Tucker Joshua A. 2019. “Who Leads? Who Follows? Measuring Issue Attention and Agenda Setting by Legislators and the Mass Public Using Social Media Data.” American Political Science Review 113 (4): 883–901.
Baumgartner Frank R., Jones Bryan D. 2009. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. The University of Chicago Press.
Bevan Shaun, John Peter. 2016. “Policy Representation by Party Leaders and Followers: What Drives UK Prime Minister’s Questions?” Government and Opposition 51 (1): 59–83.
Bélanger Éric, Meguid Bonnie M. 2008. “Issue salience, issue ownership, and issuebased vote choice.” Electoral Studies 27 (3): 477–91.
Blei David M., Ng Andrew Y., Jordan Michael I. 2003. “Latent Dirichlet Allocation.” Journal of Machine Learning Research 3: 993–1022.
Borghetto Enrico, Russo Federico. 2018. “From agenda setters to agenda takers? The determinants of party issue attention in times of crisis.” Party Politics 24 (1): 65–77.
Bosc Marc, Gagnon André, eds. 2017. House of Commons Procedure and Practice.
Box-Steffensmeier Janet M., Freeman John R., Hitt Matthew P., Pevehouse Jon C. W. 2014. Time Series Analysis for the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Boydstun Amber E., Glazier Rebecca A., Pietryka Matthew T. 2013. “Playing to the Crowd: Agenda Control in Presidential Debates.” Political Communication 30 (2): 254–77.
Burstein Paul. 2003. “The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (1): 29–40.
Canes-Wrone Brandice. 2005. Who Leads Whom? Presidents, Policy, and the Public. The University of Chicago Press.
Canes-Wrone Brandice, Shotts Kenneth W. 2004. “The Conditional Nature of Presidential Responsiveness to Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (4): 690–706.
Caughey Devin, Warshaw Christopher. 2018. “Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936-2014.” American Political Science Review 112 (2): 249–66.
Chong Dennis, Druckman James N. 2007. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 10 (1): 103–26.
Cochrane Christopher, Rheault Ludovic, Godbout Jean-François, Whyte Tanya, Wong Michael W.-C., Borwein Sophie. 2022. “The Automatic Analysis of Emotion in Political Speech Based on Transcripts.” Political Communication 39 (1): 98–121.
Damore David F. 2004. “The Dynamics of Issue Ownership in Presidential Campaigns.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (3): 391–97.
Denny Matthew J., Spirling Arthur. 2018. “Text Preprocessing For Unsupervised Learning: Why It Matters, When It Misleads, And What To Do About It.” Political Analysis 26 (2): 168–89.
Druckman James N., Jacobs Lawrence R. 2015. Who Governs? Presidents, Public Opinion, and Manipulation. The University of Chicago Press.
Egami Naoki, Fong Christian J., Grimmer Justin, Roberts Margaret E., Stewart Brandon M. 2022. “How to Make Causal Inferences Using Texts.” Science Advances 8 (42): 1–13.
Egan Patrick J. 2013. Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts American Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Erikson Robert S., Mackuen Michael B., Stimson James A. 2001. The Macro Polity. Cambridge University Press.
Green-Pedersen Christoffer, Mortensen Peter B. 2010. “Who sets the agenda and who responds to it in the Danish parliament? A new model of issue competition and agendasetting.” European Journal of Political Research 49 (2): 257–81.
Grimmer Justin, Roberts Margaret E., Stewart Brandon M. 2021. “Machine Learning for Social Science: An Agnostic Approach.” Annual Review of Political Science 24 (1): 395–419.
Grimmer Justin, Stewart Brandon M. 2013. “Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts.” Political Analysis 21 (3): 267–97.
Guber, Lynn Deborah, Bohr Jeremiah, Dunlap Riley E. 2021. “Time to Wake Up’: Climate change advocacy in a polarized Congress, 1996-2015.” Environmental Politics 30 (4): 538–58.
Imbens Guido W., Rubin Donald B. 2015. Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Iyengar Shanto, Kinder Donald R. 2010. News that Matters: Television and American Opinion. The University of Chicago Press.
Jacobs Lawrence R., Shapiro Robert Y. 1997. “Debunking the Pandering Politician Myth.” The Public Perspective 8: 3–5.
Jacobs Lawrence R., Shapiro Robert Y. 2000. Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. The University of Chicago Press.
Johnston Richard. 2017. The Canadian Party System: An Analytic History. UBC Press.
Jones Bryan D., Baumgartner Frank R. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problem. The University of Chicago Press.
Klüver Heike, Spoon Jae-Jae. 2016. “Who Responds? Voters, Parties and Issue Attention.” British Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 633–54.
Manza Jeff, Lomax Cook Fay. 2002. “A Democratic Polity? Three Views of Policy Responsiveness to Public Opinion in the United States.” American Politics Research 30 (6): 630–67.
McCombs Maxwell, Valenzuela Sebastián. 2021. Setting the Agenda: Mass Media and Public Opinion. Polity.
Mellon Jonathan. 2013. “Where and When Can We Use Google Trends to Measure Issue Salience?” PS: Political Science and Politics 46 (2): 280–90.
Mellon Jonathan. 2014. “Internet Search Data and Issue Salience: The Properties of Google Trends as a Measure of Issue Salience.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 24 (1): 45–72.
Mildenberger Peter, Howe Peter, Lachapelle Erick, Stokes Leah, Marlon Jennifer, Gravelle Timothy. 2016. “The Distribution of Climate Change Public Opinion in Canada.” PLoS ONE 11 (8): 1–14.
Moniz Philip, Wlezien Christopher. 2020. Issue Salience and Political Decisions. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1361
Page Benjamin I. 1994. “Democratic Responsiveness? Untangling the Links between Public Opinion and Policy.” PS: Political Science and Politics 27 (1): 25–29.
Page Benjamin I., Shapiro Robert Y. 1983. “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.” American Political Science Review 77 (1): 175–90.
Penner Erin, Kelly Blidook, Stuart Soroka. 2006. “Legislative Priorities and Public Opinion: Representation of Partisan Agendas in the Canadian House of Commons.” Journal of European Public Policy 13 (7): 1006–20.
Petrocik John R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825–50.
Reilly Shauna, Richey Sean, Benjamin Taylor J. 2012. “Using Google Search Data for State Politics Research: An Empirical Validity Test Using Roll-Off Data.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 12 (2): 146–59.
Rheault Ludovic, Beelen Kaspar, Cochrane Christopher, Hirst Graeme. 2016. “Measuring Emotion in Parliamentary Debates with Automated Textual Analysis.” PLoS ONE 11 (12): 1–18.
Ripberger Joseph T. 2011. “Capturing Curiosity: Using Internet Search Trends to Measure Public Attentiveness.” Policy Studies Journal 39 (2): 239–59.
Roberts Margaret E., Stewart Brandon M., Tingley Dustin, Lucas Christopher, Leder-Luis Jetson, Kushner Gadarian Shana, Albertson Bethany, David G, Rand. 2014. “Structural Topic Models for Open-Ended Survey Responses.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 1064–82.
Rossiter Erin L. 2021. “Measuring Agenda Setting in Interactive Political Communication.” American Journal of Political Science 66 (2): 337–51.
Shapiro Robert Y. 2011. “Public Opinion and American Democracy.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (5): 982–1017.
Sides John. 2006. “The Origins of Campaign Agendas.” British Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 407–36.
Soroka Stuart N. 2000. Agenda-setting Dynamics in Canada. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.
Soroka Stuart. 2002. “Issue Attributes and Agenda-Setting by Media, the Public, and Policymakers in Canada.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14 (3): 264–85.
Spoon Jae-Jae, Klüver Heike. 2014. “Do parties respond? How electoral context influences party responsiveness.” Electoral Studies 35: 48–60.
Stefano Spada, Quartagno Matteo, Tamburini Marco, Robinson David. 2018. Orcutt: Estimate Procedure in Case of First Order Autocorrelation. https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=orcutt
Stephenson Laura B., Harell Allison, Rubenson Daniel, John Loewen Peter. 2021. “Measuring Preferences and Behaviours in the 2019 Canadian Election Study.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 118–24.
Stimson James A., Mackuen Michael B., Erikson Robert S. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89 (3): 543–65.
Stubager Rune. 2018. “What is Issue Ownership and How Should We Measure It?” Political Behavior 40: 345–70.
Swearingen C. Douglas, Ripberger Joseph T. 2014. “Google Insights and U.S. Senate Elections: Does Search Traffic Provide a Valid Measure of Public Attention to Political Candidates?” Social Science Quarterly 95 (3): 882–93.
Tseng Qingzong. 2019. “Reconstruct Google Trends Daily Data for Extended Period.” Medium. https://towardsdatascience.com/reconstruct-google-trends-daily-data-forextended-period-75b6ca1d3420
Vliegenthart Rens, Walgrave Stefaan. 2011. “Content Matters: The Dynamics of Parliamentary Questioning in Belgium and Denmark.” Comparative Political Studies 44 (8): 1031–59.
Wagner Markus, Meyer Thomas M. 2014. “Which Issues do Parties Emphasise? Salience Strategies and Party Organisation in Multiparty Systems.” West European Politics 37 (5): 1019–45.
Wlezien Christopher. 2005. “On the salience of political issues: The problem with ‘most important problem’.” Electoral Studies 24 (4): 555–79.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: September 6, 2023
Issue published: March 2024
Keywords
Data availability statement
Data is available for this article. View more information
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Political Research Quarterly.
View All Journal MetricsArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 749
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 0
There are no citing articles to show.
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
