Search

Despite the proliferation of research on public service motivation (PSM), fundamental questions about its origins continue to evade scholars: Is PSM driven by genetics, socialized through experiences, or both? If PSM is socialized, when does socialization occur? Answering these questions is critical for reconciling the state versus trait debate, and for assessing the validity of practical implications prescribed by PSM studies. Utilizing "nature's own experiment," we adopt a classical twin design with 1035 twin pairs to identify how genetic heritability, a common environment, or unique environment and experiences can explain variation in PSM. Results show that PSM is heavily influenced by individuals' unique environments and experiences; not by genetics. This lends strong evidence to PSM's uniqueness as a motivational construct as related "other‐regarding" concepts show sizeable genetic components. Finally, our results corroborate that PSM is a human resource with dynamic properties organizations can cultivate to enhance productivity in public service workforces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Being on the winning or the losing side in elections has important consequences for voters' perceptions of democracy. This article contributes to the existing literature by showing that being on the losing side has persistent effects over a surprisingly long time. Based on a dataset that measures voters' satisfaction with democracy three years after elections were held, it first shows that losers are significantly more dissatisfied with democracy than winners on both input and output side measures of perceptions of democracy. Furthermore, the article shows that turning from winning to losing has significant negative effects on voters' satisfaction, and that this finding is robust across a number of different specifications. These results are remarkable given that the data used is from Denmark – a country that constitutes a least‐likely case for finding effects of being on the winning or the losing side. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We study personality traits of Danish parliamentarians (MPs) and examine elite-voter congruence and elite differentiation. Whereas previous political elite studies have focused only on the Big Five level, we include aspect-level differences.Method: In a highly representative survey of Danish MPs (N = 81; response rate = 46.3%) and a representative study of Danish voters (N = 3,612), we used the 60-item NEO-PI-R short version to examine personality differences on the Big Five level and, based on the NEO-BFAS, the aspect level.Results: MPs were more extraverted, conscientious, and open than the average voter. On the elite level, liberal MPs were more agreeable and, on the aspect level, more compassionate but not more polite than conservative MPs. MPs in center parties had stronger power aspirations and were less agreeable and more extraverted than MPs in peripheral parties. On the aspect level, MPs in center parties were more assertive and enthusiastic and less polite. Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were associated with power aspiration, but Extraversion was not because the assertiveness effect was suppressed by a non-effect for enthusiasm.Conclusions: The inclusion of the aspect level explains null findings at the Big Five level and adds important nuances to the personality portrait of political elites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following Hirschman, voters who are discontent with the party they voted for have two options: exit the party and vote for another or stay loyal. The inclination to exit or stay loyal is rooted in the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality. We test our argument in two panel studies in Denmark and the United Kingdom. We find that citizens open to experience are more likely to switch parties since they are more likely to think about alternatives and take risks. Extroverts identify and commit themselves to organizations and stay loyal in Denmark, but we do not confirm this pattern in the United Kingdom. Our findings demonstrate that electoral volatility is, at least partly, rooted in personality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines if deep-seated psychological differences add to the explanation of attitudes toward immigration. We explore whether the Big Five personality traits matter for immigration attitudes beyond the traditional situational factors of economic and cultural threat and analyze how individuals with different personalities react when confronted with the same situational triggers. Using a Danish survey experiment, we show that different personality traits have different effects on opposition toward immigration. We find that Openness has an unconditional effect on attitudes toward immigration: scoring higher on this trait implies a greater willingness to admit immigrants. Moreover, individuals react differently to economic threat depending on their score on the traits Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Specifically, individuals scoring low on Agreeableness and individuals scoring high on Conscientiousness are more sensitive to the skill level of immigrants. The results imply that personality is important for attitudes toward immigration, and in the conclusion, we further discuss how the observed conditional and unconditional effects of personality make sense theoretically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article of top civil servants in Danish central and local government sheds new light on politicization. A survival analysis shows that since 1970, the risk that a top civil servant will be replaced has increased. There is no evidence of politicization in central government while city managers' risk of replacement increases both when a new mayor, representing another party and holding an absolute majority, and when the shift of mayor takes place within the same party. We interpret these results as evidence of the adaptability of the merit civil service and political executives' stronger insistence on their authority to make discretionary replacements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do certain ministers remain in their post for years while others have their time in office cut short? Drawing on the broader literature on portfolio allocation, this article argues that the saliency of individual portfolios shapes ministerial turnover. The main argument is that ministerial dismissals are less likely to occur the higher the saliency attributed to the ministerial portfolio since ministers appointed to important posts are more likely to have been through extensive screening before appointment. Importantly, it is also posited in the article that the effect of portfolio salience is conditioned by government approval ratings: when government ratings are on the decline, prime ministers are less likely to reshuffle or fire important ministers than when approval ratings are improving. To test these claims, Cox proportional hazards models are applied to a new dataset on ministerial turnover in Scandinavia during the postwar period. The results strongly support the proposition that portfolio saliency matters for ministerial survival, and that this effect is moderated by government popularity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]