- Enseignants / Chercheurs
- Alumni & Donateurs
- Le labo
- Les chercheurs
- La recherche
21-22 June 2016
- CC BY-SA 2.0_Sunny Ripert_Le vieux baromètre
A Workshop on Policy Priorities
Co-organised by Sciences Po/CEVIPOF, Sciences Po/LIEPP and Université Sorbonne Paris Cité
21-22 June 2016
254, bd Saint Germain
The LIEPP Evaluation of Democracy research group funded project “Barometer for policy priorities” will support and host an international workshop on policy priorities on 21-22 June, 2016. The Barometer project has produced public opinion survey results on policy priorities in France. The aim of this workshop is to introduce results collected thus far and present a project based on an innovative empirical framework specifically dedicated to the study of policy priorities, simultaneously measuring preference and salience as well as the party best able to implement individual preferences. With feedback from international participants who are some of the top scholars in the area of public policy, project researchers also aim to plan the next phase of the research project.
Longitudinally tracking public opinion is particularly necessary to understand political dynamics, and particularly policy representation and public responsiveness processes. Despite numerous studies, particularly in a thermostatic perspective, the knowledge of the impact of the evolution of issue salience and issue preference in public opinion on the policy agenda as well as the effect of the policy agenda on citizens’ policy priorities remains incomplete, particularly in France. Until now, longitudinal approaches of public opinion have not investigated satisfyingly policy priorities, their changes as well as their effects and determinants.
Public opinion’s policy priorities have two dimensions: salience and preference. Indicators commonly used in the literature to study preference have not included salience. Conversely, the most common indicator to salience - « most important problem (MIP) » and « most important issue » - have two severe limits. First the key one is that they are not appropriate indicators of issue importance or issue salience. Second the MIP responses are not preference indicators even if some scholar uses them so.