What do we mean when we talk about constituency service? A scoping literature review of four decades of research

Abstract

Constituency service is a crucial concept for understanding the nature and intensity of the links between representatives and their constituents. However, studies have been inconsistent about the meaning of constituency service, its causes and consequences, justifying a systematic analysis of where we stand in this field of studies. This article conducts a scoping literature review of 198 studies on constituency service published between 1975 and 2021. It aims to answer the following questions: how has constituency service been defined? Which research designs are commonly used when studying it? And what are its driving factors and political effects? These questions are answered using a dataset that codes each study along several dimensions tapping into conceptualization, research design, explanatory factors, and effects. The analysis shows that this field of research has grown significantly over the last decade, covering more activities (inside and outside the geographic constituency) and countries, with increased methodological pluralism. This review makes an original contribution by charting the main trends in the study of constituency service, advancing a dynamic conceptualization of constituency service, and opening up new avenues for research on the subject.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=prxx20
Political Research Exchange
An ECPR Journal
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/prxx20
What do we mean when we talk about
constituency service? A scoping literature review
of four decades of research
Edalina Rodrigues Sanches, João Conduto, André Marinha & Ana Espírito-
Santo
To cite this article: Edalina Rodrigues Sanches, João Conduto, André Marinha & Ana
Espírito-Santo (2024) What do we mean when we talk about constituency service? A scoping
literature review of four decades of research, Political Research Exchange, 6:1, 2377652, DOI:
10.1080/2474736X.2024.2377652
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2024.2377652
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 17 Jul 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 36
View related articles
View Crossmark data

RESEARCH ARTICLE
What do we mean when we talk about constituency service?
A scoping literature review of four decades of research
Edalina Rodrigues Sanches
a
, João Conduto
a
, André Marinha
b
and
Ana Espírito-Santo
c,d
a
Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal;
b
School of Social Sciences and
Humanities, NOVA University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal;
c
Iscte-IUL (Lisbon University Institute), Lisbon,
Portugal;
d
Centre for Sociological Studies and Research, Lisbon University Institute (CIES-IUL), Lisbon,
Portugal
ABSTRACT
Constituency service is a crucial concept for understanding the nature
and intensity of the links between representatives and their
constituents. However, studies have been inconsistent about the
meaning of constituency service, its causes and consequences,
justifying a systematic analysis of where we stand in this field of
studies. This article conducts a scoping literature review of 198
studies on constituency service published between 1975 and 2021. It
aims to answer the following questions: how has constituency
service been defined? Which research designs are commonly used
when studying it? And what are its driving factors and political
effects? These questions are answered using a dataset that codes
each study along several dimensions tapping into conceptualization,
research design, explanatory factors, and effects. The analysis shows
that this field of research has grown significantly over the last
decade, covering more activities (inside and outside the geographic
constituency) and countries, with increased methodological
pluralism. This review makes an original contribution by charting the
main trends in the study of constituency service, advancing a
dynamic conceptualization of constituency service, and opening up
new avenues for research on the subject.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 11 October 2023
Accepted 3 July 2024
KEYWORDS
Systematic review;
constituency service;
casework; political
representation; home-style
Introduction
The link between representatives and constituents is a vital part of the life of any regime
and particularly so in democracies. It can be studied by looking at either different com-
ponents of political representation and/or responsiveness (Dovi 2015; Eulau and Karps
1977) or specifically at constituency service, which is the primary means used to
respond to constituents’needs (Eulau and Karps 1977).
Earlier studies defined constituency service as a nonpartisan and non-programmatic
effort to advance and defend the particularistic interests of the constituents (Cain,
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s)
or with their consent.
CONTACT Edalina Rodrigues Sanches ersanches@ics.ulisboa.pt
POLITICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE
2024, VOL. 6, 2377652
https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2024.2377652

Ferejohn, and Fiorina 1984), and conceived the ‘constituency’as a set of concentric
circles radiating from a personal (centre) to a geographic (outer) circle (Fenno 1978).
Variations in the legislator’s behaviour were expected to depend on the priority
given to links with the personal, primary, re-election or geographic constituency
(Fenno 1978).
Research on constituency service is both rich and complex. First, the meaning and
range of activities measured in the studies vary widely. While initial studies highlighted
activities performed in the district, more studies are now observing constituency efforts
in parliament and the digital sphere (Arter 2018;CrispandSimoneau2017;Gervaisand
Wilson 2019). Second, a constituency can mean different things, and legislators may
have different incentives to cater to the interest of personal, primary, re-election or geo-
graphic constituencies (Fenno 1978). Third, the findings on the nature, drivers and con-
sequences of constituency are highly context-dependent and are based predominantly
on the observation of western democratic countries –initially the US and the UK, and
later other European countries (Arter 2018). Although existing studies have increased
our knowledge of constituency service, the diversity of definitions and activities as
well as the unclear results make generalizations difficult. A more systematic analysis
of where we stand in this field of studies is therefore crucial both to refine the
concept (i.e. concept formation) and advance existing research agendas (i.e. theory
building).
This article conducts a scoping literature review (SLR) of 198 studies published
between 1975 and 2021 to document the main conceptual and empirical trends
shaping the study of constituency service. This SLR aims to answer the following ques-
tions: how has constituency service been defined? Which research designs are commonly
used when studying it? And what are its driving factors and political effects? To answer
these questions, this study draws on a dataset that codes each considered study across
dimensions such as conceptualization and measurement, research design, explanatory
factors, and effects.
The analysis shows that studies on constituency service have grown significantly over
the last decade, covering more activities and more countries with increased methodologi-
cal pluralism. Nevertheless, work on the subject is still largely characterized by quantitat-
ive case studies focusing on the Global North. In terms of the dominant explanatory
accounts, at the macro-level, most studies emphasize the role played by political insti-
tutions and district characteristics to explain variations in constituency service. At the
MP-level, political career, election prospects, socio-demographics and personal motiv-
ation are the dominant explanations. At the citizen-level, the constituents’socio-demo-
graphic profile, the expectations in relation to MPs’role orientation, among others,
seem to trigger both different expectations and experiences of constituency service pro-
vision. The review also shows that only a few studies investigate the consequences of con-
stituency service, namely by assessing its influence on MPs’electoral performance or on
citizens’evaluation of (or trust in) MPs. Building on this overview, we develop a concep-
tual approach for the study of constituency service comprising multiple indicators for
measuring its key dimensions (service, representation/responsiveness and distribution/
allocation) across different arenas (district, parliament and digital sphere). Then, we
advance a set of topics that can shape future innovative research in both theoretical
and methodological terms. Overall, this review makes an original contribution by charting
2E. R. SANCHES ET AL.

the main trends in the study of constituency service, advancing a dynamic conceptualiz-
ation of constituency service, and opening up new avenues for research on the subject.
This not only has academic value, as exemplified by the growth in systematic reviews
in political science, but also ‘real life’relevance since it illuminates the connections
between politicians and their constituents.
This study starts with an overview of constituency service to lay the ground for the sys-
tematic review. We then describe the protocol used in the design and implementation of
the SLR, and discuss the challenges and limitations of this exercise. The main results of the
SLR are set out in three sections: the first charts the temporal, geographic and methodo-
logical trends in the study of constituency service; the second identifies its key explana-
tory factors at the macro and micro level, and the third outlines its consequences. We
conclude by advancing a conceptual framework for studying constituency service, pro-
posing themes for a future research agenda, and summarizing the main findings and
takeaways.
The puzzle of constituency service
Studies on constituency service span over four decades but many of the questions raised
remain unresolved. The first question concerns the meaning(s) of constituency and consti-
tuency service. Legislators may perceive a constituency as a nest of circles that includes a
geographic constituency with boundaries stipulated by law; a re-election constituency
composed of people who elected the legislator; a primary constituency comprising his/
her strongest supporters, and a personal constituency composed of private networks
(Fenno 1978). However, most research underplays this heterogeneity by focusing
mainly on the geographic and electoral constituencies. The meanings of constituency
service are also diverse. Eulau and Karps (1977)define it as service responsiveness, i.e. per-
sonalized and particularized forms of casework whereby legislators signal commitment to
their constituents, distinguishing it from policy (representation of constituents’policy
interests), allocation (pork barrel) and symbolic (gestures that generate trust and continue
support) responsiveness. Fenno (1978)definition contemplates casework in the district (at
home) but also some kind of reporting. The legislator home-style combines three ingredi-
ents seen as crucial for building trust and electoral support: ‘allocating resources, present-
ing themselves, and explaining their Washington activity’(1978, 50). Some elements of
this conceptualization evoke what others have called personal vote, that is ‘that portion
of a candidate’s electoral support which originates in his or her personal qualities, qualifi-
cations, activities, and record’(Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina 1984, 111). Personal vote means
using constituency service as a way to build an electoral connection rather than the vote
itself.
Due to the various conceptualizations of constituency service, a plethora of activities
are also associated to it. Fenno’s(1978, 101) distinction between casework, when the
service benefits a few individuals, and project assistance, when a larger number of individ-
uals benefit, exemplifies extant diversity. Hence, a first and more significant set of studies
has investigated legislators’casework activities, e.g. the time spent in their district, the
meetings held with constituents, or their participation in political and social events in
the district, inter alia (André and Depauw 2013; Norris 1997). A second set of studies
has analysed project assistance by exploring how politicians channel funds and
POLITICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE 3

development projects to key groups or areas within their constituency (Bussell 2019;
Mayhew 1974; Taylor 1992). However, this division is far from clear-cut. While some
studies treat allocation responsiveness (i.e. project assistance or pork barrel) as a separate
phenomenon (Eulau and Karps 1977) and discuss it within theories of distributive politics
(Golden and Min 2013), others relate it more explicitly to constituency service (Ciftci and
Yildirim 2019; Ellickson and Whistler 2001). The picture becomes even more blurred as
more activities are included in the list. Indeed, a growing number of studies are investi-
gating how legislators represent the district’s interests in parliament –via questions,
bills and speeches (Dockendorff2020; Martin 2011,2013; Russo 2021); and how legislators
use social media to develop digital home styles oriented towards specific demographic
constituencies (Gervais and Wilson 2019).
A second question concerns the causes of constituency service.MPs’decision to
embrace his/her role as ‘good constituency member’(Searing 1985)vis-à-vis other
duties depends on multiple factors. Electoral motivations (re-election and re-selection)
are important, as are electoral institutions, because candidate-centred electoral systems
offer more incentives for constituency-focused behaviour than party-centred systems
(Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina 1984; Crisp and Simoneau 2017). Additionally, MPs’intrinsic
motivations and perceptions (Giger, Lanz, and De Vries 2020; Yildirim 2020), their bio-
graphic ties to the district (Dockendorff2020; Russo 2011,2021) and the characteristics
of the constituents (Habel and Birch 2019; Hayes and Bishin 2024; Landgrave 2021)
may affect their decisions. Therefore, a complex set of factors at the macro and micro
level constrain MPs choices, making it hard to disentangle which effects are the most rel-
evant, and in which contexts. The final question, on the consequences of constituency
service, is still understudied. The few existing studies are eclectic in that they survey the
effects on re-election (Studlar and McAllister 1996), citizens’evaluations of MPs
(Sulkin, Testa, and Usry 2015) or the durability of authoritarian regimes (Distelhorst and
Hou 2017; Ong 2015), but the findings are contextually-bounded. Therefore, a SLR can
help clarify some of the conceptual and empirical challenges shaping the study of consti-
tuency service and, at the same time, contribute to both concept formation and theory-
building.
Methods and data
Over the past decade, systematic reviews have gained prominence in political science lit-
erature, and their potential for synthesizing evidence, signalling gaps, and clarifying con-
cepts is increasingly recognized (e.g. Bandau 2022; Cancela and Geys 2016; Dacombe
2018; Khan, Krishnan, and Dhir 2021; Lisi, Oliveira, and Loureiro 2023; Miljand 2020).
The type of systematic reviews (systematic or scoping reviews) varies depending on
the goals and the synthesis method in use. Systematic literature reviews are applied
when the researcher seeks to identify relevant research on a precise question or hypoth-
esis, whereas scoping literature reviews (SLR) are more open-ended and useful for identi-
fying the types of available evidence in a given field, clarifying concepts and definitions,
identifying gaps and factors associated with concepts, and summarizing findings (Munn
et al. 2018).
What is crucial is that both systematic and scope reviews involve a protocol defining
the question(s) or topic(s) of interest and setting the criteria for the selection and
4E. R. SANCHES ET AL.

further inclusion/exclusion of studies (Liberati et al. 2009; Miljand 2020). In a subsequent
stage, data is collected, processed and analysed either quantitatively (e.g. through meta-
analysis) or qualitatively, involving the critical interpretation and thematic analysis of the
studies under consideration (Liberati et al. 2009; Miljand 2020). These procedures ensure
transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility, unlike the ‘traditional’type of lit-
erature review (Liberati et al. 2009; Miljand 2020).
In this study, we opt for a scoping review since constituency service is defined and
operationalized differently across studies, and emerging evidence remains unclear. There-
fore, mapping the field is a necessary step before more structured systematic reviews can
be performed.
Search and selection process
The implementation of the SLR draws explicitly from the widely used PRISMA (Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Protocol, which sets clear cri-
teria for selecting and screening studies (Liberati et al. 2009). To select the studies, we
used two electronic repositories –Scopus and Web of Science –to avoid a possible
bias in the database choice that could yield differing findings (Wanyama, McQuaid, and
Kittler 2022). Both are commonly used in systematic reviews and allow for an exhaustive
search by keywords of interest.
The definition of keywords relied on early works on political representation and consti-
tuency service (Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina 1984,1987;EulauandKarps1977;Fenno1978;
Searing 1985), and more recent research and state of the field papers (Arter 2018;Bussell
2019; Crisp and Simoneau 2017;Russo2021). Given the controversy on what counts as con-
stituency service, we opted to use wide-encompassing keywords that would hint at consti-
tuency service or at representative-constituent relations. We purposely avoided terms that
could associate constituency service with concrete tasks so that the meanings and findings
could emerge inductively and not be pre-determined apriori. Simply put, we used key-
words as a kind of ‘fishing net’with which to ‘capture’the prevailing meanings and
findings. We devised a fairly exhaustive list of keywords
1
which were then systematically
searched for in both electronic repositories: ‘constituency service’,‘service responsiveness’,
‘constituency work’,‘constituency focus’,‘constituency effort’,‘constituency representation’,
‘constituency preferences’,‘constituency influence’,‘constituency diversity’,‘constituent
preferences’,‘constituent-representative’,‘geographic representation’‘home style’,‘district
focus’,‘political linkage’and ‘local representation’.
The search in the electronic repositories covered studies published until December
2021 regardless of the disciplinary field; and considered whether the selected keywords
were mentioned in an article’s abstract, title or keywords. We relied exclusively on
English-language academic articles, which means that studies published in other
languages and available through other sources and other formats were excluded
(books, book chapters, conference papers, working papers and book reviews). This
decision is in line with most systematic review studies (Khan, Krishnan, and Dhir 2021;
Lisi, Oliveira, and Loureiro 2023; Tucker 2002).
Figure 1 displays all stages from the selection of studies to screening and final sample.
The initial search of all keywords resulted in 2865 articles: 2139 gathered through Scopus
and 726 through Web of Science. In the first two stages, duplicates were excluded (N=
POLITICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE 5

586), as well as studies that upon closer examination, were found not to be about consti-
tuency service (N= 2003). To give just some examples, the keywords ‘constituency prefer-
ences’,‘constituency influence’and ‘constituent preferences’were included in the initial
sample of numerous studies about how constituents influence legislators’behaviour in
parliament (particularly in the US); and about the congruency between representatives
and their constituents. While these topics tap into the connections between representa-
tives and their constituents, they are not about constituency service. Likewise, some key-
words like ‘local representation’or ‘geographic representation’were identified in
numerous studies in other disciplinary fields unrelated to politics. While most decisions
concerning the inclusion/exclusion of articles were straightforward, several validation
exercises were made to ensure that the correct decisions were taken at this stage, includ-
ing a third-party screening of a sample of excluded studies (over 700 studies), and reading
paper in full when the abstract was not enough.
In the following stage, from a sample narrowed down to 276 studies, we screened the
full text of the articles, and excluded 78 articles that did not focus on constituency service.
This was the case, for example, of some studies that mentioned constituency service
briefly in the text but did not define it or empirically assess it. This reduced the final
sample of the SLR to 198 studies. The authors coded between 24 and 64 articles each, uti-
lizing a codebook that was iteratively constructed (see codebook in the supplementary
material). The preliminary literature review conducted to identify the keywords helped
Figure 1. Scoping literature review flowchart. Source: Authors’elaboration.
6E. R. SANCHES ET AL.

elaborate a starting codebook. It informed the definition of initial dimensions and cat-
egories to map the goals/questions, the methodology, the meanings, causes and conse-
quences of constituency service in each study. As the readings progressed, the initial
coding scheme was enhanced with the inclusion of new categories, aided by regular
meetings, double-checking procedures, and third-party validation. Therefore, the final
codebook portrays the richness and diversity of extant approaches in the field.
Limitations
Before proceeding to the findings, we must acknowledge the study’s limitations. First,
while SLR protocols ensure more transparency and rigour vis-à-vis ‘traditional’literature
reviews, they may also be problematic because studies are included/excluded on the
basis of titles, abstracts and keywords. This means that we might have accidentally
missed studies investigating phenomena related to constituency service that did not
mention any of the selected keywords in the title, abstract or keywords. While our ration-
ale for selecting keywords sought to mitigate this risk, we cannot disregard the possibility
of accidental exclusions and their potential impact on some of our results. Secondly, the
fact that constituency service is a fuzzy concept is an additional challenge: it can cover a
broad range of activities and scholars give it different names. This proved challenging
when it came to devising a list of keywords that would capture ‘all studies’on the
topic; we eventually opted to include keywords that were broad enough to cover the
different terms and phenomena associated to constituency service, while avoiding
more specific keywords such as ‘pork barrel’or ‘personal vote’, among others.
We faced an additional hurdle as some terms are not always linked to constituency
service and may be discussed within different streams in the literature. For example,
pork barrel has been defined as a separate form of representation (Eulau and Karps
1977) and discussed within theories of distributive politics, while ‘personal vote’is
often studied in electoral and candidate selection studies (Shugart, Valdini, and Suominen
2005). Nevertheless, our strategy did identify studies that use pork barrel and personal
vote as forms of constituency service –which means that our ‘open-ended’approach
yielded interesting results. Another approach would have been to include keywords for
all possible phenomena related to constituency service; we ultimately decided against
this as it would be difficult to ensure the inclusion of all phenomena and failing to do
so would bias the analysis. The final sample allows for a diverse and unbiased sample
and the outputs of this exercise can be used by future research to counter this limitation.
The results displayed in the following sections should be interpreted with caution consid-
ering the limitations outlined above.
Constituency service: mapping the field
This section offers an overview of the studies published by year, region, research design
and type of data analysis. As shown in Figure 2, the number of published studies on con-
stituency service was relatively low throughout the 1980s and 1990s but started to
increase in the 2000s. The most visible upward inflection occurred in the past decade
with 67% of the studies being published between 2010 and 2021. This attests to the
new interest in constituency service within the discipline.
POLITICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE 7

Most studies (nearly 77%) centre on cases from Europe and America. The focus was
initially primarily on the UK and US as their candidate-centred rules were conducive to
constituency service, but the field has expanded to include institutionally diverse
countries in Europe (Germany, Netherlands, Finland, Norway and the Netherlands) and
the Americas (Canada and Latin American countries). In contrast, only a handful of
studies have focused on countries in Asia (e.g. Japan, Malaysia and South Korea), Africa
(e.g. Ghana, Uganda, South Africa, Kenya, Zambia) and Oceania (Australia and New
Zealand), while cross-regional comparisons are scarce (7 out of 198). For example,
Struthers (2018) investigated green parties’attention to local issues in two countries
with different electoral systems: the UK, with a first-past-the-post system (FPTP), and
New Zealand, with a proportional representation system (PR). Likewise, Heitshusen,
Young, and Wood (2005) examined the constituency focus of MPs in five countries –Aus-
tralia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the UK –with varying electoral rules, ranging
from preferential voting, to FPTP and closed-list PR. As explained later on, electoral
systems are key institutional predictors of constituency service.
In terms of research design, the field has been characterized by single case studies,
while comparative, and experimental designs are both less common and more recent.
Lastly, around 68% (n= 134) of the studies employ quantitative methods, 11% (n= 21)
mobilize qualitative methods, and only 15% (n= 29) combine the two. Most studies use
extremely rich and diverse data. Quantitative studies rely on elite and citizen surveys, par-
liamentary data (speeches, questions, motions and bills, etc.), and constituency funds for
example, while qualitative studies rely on fieldwork, interviews with elites, and participant
observation.
Figure 2. Constituency service: year, region, research design and type of data analysis. Source:
Authors’elaboration.
8E. R. SANCHES ET AL.

This initial snapshot reveals that knowledge on constituency service is mainly shaped
by case studies using quantitative approaches and conducted in the Global North, predo-
minantly in consolidated democracies. Later on, we discuss how employing qualitative
approaches, and diversifying the geographic scope of the studies can help advance
research on this topic.
The ‘meanings’of constituency service
The meanings of constituency service were extracted from the definition provided in each
study, and we assigned as many codes as necessary to fully characterize the different con-
notations. As mentioned in the methodological section, we drew on a preliminary litera-
ture review to create a starting codebook, and established a-priori meanings of
constituency service to get the coding exercise going. Subsequently, other categories
were added as the coding of each study progressed in an effort to accurately portray
the definition in use. This coding exercise was not always straightforward as some
studies used the term constituency service loosely or used other terms to refer to it.
When the study lacked a clear theoretical definition, the coders drew on the empirical
operationalization to extract the meaning.
The constituency is treated as a geographic or electoral unit in most studies, with few
looking into how constituency representation goes beyond geographic frontiers (Saalfeld
2011) and the socio-demographic diversity of the constituents (Habel and Birch 2019;
Hayes and Bishin 2024). As for the meaning of constituency service, Figure 3 (upper
graph) shows the most common categories (for the full list of ‘meanings’see codebook,
in the supplementary material). Since most studies display more than one meaning
associated with constituency service –either by tackling different types of constitu-
ency-focused activities or by departing from broader definitions –the total count is
higher than the number of studies considered.
In our sample, constituency service is equated primarily with casework and home-
styles. Most studies try to understand how legislators behave in their district, be it from
the time spent in (or number of visits to) their district or the set of activities they
develop and type of constituents they encounter (André, Bradbury, and Depauw 2014;
Norris 1996; Park 1988; Searing 1985). The second most common meaning refers to
how MPs use parliamentary tools such as questions, bills, resolutions, or speeches to rep-
resent their geographic constituency. Contrary to studies on casework and home-styles,
this is a more recent trend that builds on innovative methodologies of text analysis to
investigate MPs’representational focus. This is done by counting explicit geographic
references to the constituency (Chiru 2018; Dockendorff2020; Kartalis 2023; Martin
2011,2013; Russo 2021) or by estimating the level of focus on topics that are of particular
interest to the constituency (Borghetto, Santana-Pereira, and Freire 2020).
The third approach highlights different aspects of responsiveness. For Koop (2012), for
example, service responsiveness involves both service (efforts of representatives to assist
constituents in dealing with government agencies) and allocative components (efforts
to secure benefits from the government for their ridings). Bárcena Juárez and Kerevel’s
(2021, 1387) notion of communicative responsiveness ‘indicates politicians’openness to
listen closely and understand constituent concerns before making any decision that
might affect a polity’, whereas Taggart and Durant’s(1985, 490) symbolic responsiveness
POLITICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE 9

translates a diffuse ‘method of demonstrating to constituents that incumbents are fulfill-
ing their representational role’. In all these definitions, there is a sense that representatives
are bound to their constituents and must therefore act in their favour. The fourth
approach perceives constituency service as a form of particularistic politics (e.g. pork
barrel, allocation of club or private goods). This is present in Lindberg’s(2010, 120)
definition of constituency service as ‘the provision of club goods (…) or purely private
goods’, and Lancaster’s(1986, 68) statement that ‘pork barrel politics is a particular
type of constituency service’that ‘benefits the representative’s geographic constituency
as a collective good’.
As can be seen in Figure 3 (upper graph), existing studies have also emphasized out-
reach activities (Baxter, Marcella, and O’Shea 2016; Jackson and Lilleker 2011; Neihouser
2023), constituency representation (Russo 2011,2021; Searing 1985), and personal vote –
i.e. relying on constituency service to build a personalized local support base (Middleton
2019). Finally, more than one ‘meaning’of constituency service was found in several
studies. For instance, Ellickson and Whistler (2001) investigated the time that US state
legislators spent on both casework and public resource allocation and showed that legis-
lators have different incentives to engage in these activities. Likewise, Ciftci and Yildirim
Figure 3. Constituency service: meanings and status as variable. Source: Authors’elaboration.
10 E. R. SANCHES ET AL.

(2019, 369) analysed whether Turkish legislators had distinct motives to carry out different
kinds of constituency-oriented activities such as ‘ensuring the provision of benefits to a
district, spending time to help constituents, pursuing public investments for an electoral
district, or by asking constituency-centred parliamentary questions (PQs) on the floor’.
These are but a few examples of broader conceptualizations of constituency service
found in the sample (see Chiru’s2018, among others).
When accounting for the theoretical position occupied by constituency service in exist-
ing studies, we find that it is mainly treated as a dependent (N= 158) rather than indepen-
dent variable (N= 28) (Figure 3, lower graph). This means that we know more about the
repertoires of constituency service and its causes than about its consequences. Moreover,
only a few studies treat constituency service as both the dependent and independent
variable (N= 12). Building on this, the next two sections discuss the explanatory factors
and the consequences of constituency service hitherto researched.
Explaining constituency service
To map explanations of constituency service, the main independent variables in each
study were coded and subsequently clustered into major explanatory accounts. The
same strategy used when coding the meanings of constituency service was applied, start-
ing with a set of pre-established variables drawn from a preliminary literature review and
another variable set included mid-coding process.
We start by discussing macro-level explanations and then proceed to MP-level and
citizen-level explanations. Studies sometimes test these sets of explanations in parallel,
but by analysing them separately, we can duly synthesize the findings on each explana-
tory account. Descriptive data is complemented in each section with discussions of the
key findings, drawing on a selected sample of studies. Given space limits, only the
most frequent explanations were covered but the full list of variables is shown in the
codebook (see supplementary material).
Macro-level explanations
Macro-level explanations refer to institutional, structural and contextual characteristics
that influence constituency service. As Figure 4 reveals, political institutions constitute
Figure 4. Macro-level explanations of constituency service. Source: Authors’elaboration.
Note: The graph displays the N, i.e. the number of studies.
POLITICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE 11

the most frequent explanation of constituency service; being tested in more than half of
the studies included in the SLR. Political institutions comprise electoral systems, political
parties, party systems, parliament structure (bicameral or unicameral), system of govern-
ment (federal or unitary), and candidate selection methods, among others. District charac-
teristics arises as the second most-tested explanation, covering variables related to
district’s demography (e.g. population size, age structure, and ethnicity), geography
(e.g. rural/urban, centre/periphery), social cleavages and political culture, and electoral
marginality. Finally, though less prevalent, contextual factors account for the impact of
an economic crisis or election cycles on constituency service for example.
Regarding the role played by political institutions, the main claim is that, as rules of
the game, they influence MPs’role orientation. The electoral system is the most
researched political institution (tested in 43 studies); the expectation is that constitu-
ency service provision is higher where there are candidate-centred electoral rules
(Single member districts-SMD/plurality/FPTP and open lists) as legislators’re-selection
and re-election prospects depend more on their ability to build a personalized support
base in the district. In contrast, party-centred electoral rules (CLPR) offer no such incen-
tives as MPs’fate is tied to the party and their ability to win support within the party
(Crisp and Simoneau 2017). However, findings have been inconsistent as far as these
expectations are concerned.
Struthers (2018), for example, found that Green Party MPs elected in nation-wide PR
lists (New Zealand) devoted as much attention to local issues as Green Party MPs
elected under the FPTP system (UK). Heitshusen, Young, and Wood (2005) cross-national
study shows that MPs elected in SMD, who are usually more dependent on local consti-
tuency support, are more likely to focus on the constituency than those elected in multi-
member districts (MMD). However, the study also reveals that MPs elected in MMD (e.g.
Ireland) feature a relatively high level of constituency focus. These studies show that there
are incentives to focus attention on narrow local issues that are independent from the
characteristics of electoral systems and that might be explained by individual and contex-
tual factors.
Political parties and party systems are the second most researched political institutions
(tested in 40 studies). Jackson and Lilleker (2011) investigated patterns of Twitter usage to
connect to voters in government and opposition parties in the UK, finding that the Labour
and the Liberal Democrats used it for similar reasons: to better depict their views. Anagno-
son’s(1991) study on New Zealand finds that MPs’ties to local party organizations
reinforce localism, that is, the need for MPs to remain locally active by attending local
party meetings and holding surgeries.
A sample of studies explore the role of other political institutions but to a lesser extent
(system of government, parliamentary systems, decentralization, etc.). Russell and Brad-
bury (2007)find that the process of devolution in the UK after the transfer of competences
from Westminster to local parliaments resulted in a general decrease in the amount of
constituency casework done by Scottish and Welsh MPs, except in more competitive con-
stituencies. Franks’(2007) analysis of the Canadian federal system contradicts the expec-
tation that constituency service provision varies significantly across levels of government;
members elected at different levels embrace it as part of their daily work. In both studies,
constituency work is regarded by politicians, national and provincial/regional, as one of
their most rewarding and satisfying functions, which to some extent explains the high
12 E. R. SANCHES ET AL.

level of dedication to constituents even in the presence of other political institutions that
could potentially alleviate their workload (see also Bradbury 2007).
Regarding district characteristics, Dockendorff’s(2020) study of Chile tests, among other
factors, whether the size of the population living in the constituency affects constituency
focus in speeches, questions, resolutions and bills in parliament. The results go in the
expected direction, i.e. the size of the constituency correlates negatively with all
outcome variables, though only attaining statistical significance in half of the models.
Martin’s(2011) study on Ireland reveals that the central-periphery dynamic is crucial to
understand the constituency focus of parliamentary questions. Specifically local questions
were frequent from deputies from outside Dublin and as the distance from Dublin
increased. Ellickson and Whistler (2001, 563) add a different insight by showing that mod-
alities of constituency service can be spatially diverse; while rural districts required time
spent on casework, ‘urban districts required more pork’(for different results see Costa
and Poyet (2016) study on France). Finally, Adler, Gent, and Overmeyer (1998)find that
the district’s electoral marginality influences the decision by the US House of the Repre-
sentatives members to create an official homepage and to emphasize constituent case-
work in their official homepage.
Research has also considered, albeit to a lesser extent, a broad range of contextual vari-
ables –such as digitalization processes, election proximity, economic crisis, or countries’
different levels of welfare provision. For example, O’Leary (2011)finds that the introduc-
tion of the internet has changed the way the Teachta Dála (TDs), or members of Ireland’s
Dáil, interact with their constituents as it allows a larger number of citizens to engage with
politicians, but it alters ‘the profile of constituents making contacts and the nature of their
cases’(342). Election proximity can also influence how MPs interact with their constitu-
ents, as seen by Baxter, Marcella, and O’Shea’s(2016) work on Scottish MPs’use of
Twitter and the impact of the proximity to the Scottish independence referendum.
Finally, Kartalis’(2023) study on Greece reveals that economic performance is positive
and significantly associated with tabling constituency-focused questions; however, this
effect becomes less pronounced as MPs’electoral vulnerability increases.
Macro-level explanations are undoubtedly crucial to understand constituency service,
as MPs’decisions are also formed on the basis of the ‘information’received from the pol-
itical, economic and cultural settings within which they operate. While most studies
confirm macro-level effects, it is difficult to single out the most relevant factor as evidence
emerges on specific cases studies and specific institutions. More cross-national studies are
required to test (co)variation and whether some of these effects are generalizable.
MP-level explanations
It is widely accepted that constituency service provision varies with MPs characteristics
and Figure 5 displays those more frequently tested. It considers political career variables
(e.g. seniority, incumbency, cabinet, legislative or party career), election prospects (e.g.
electoral marginality/vulnerability/safety, expectations of win/defeat), socio-demographics
(e.g. profession, class, education, age/cohort, gender, ethnicity), personal motivation/style
(e.g. interest, motivation, ambition, self-expressed role orientation), localness (born, resi-
dent, or politician in the district)
2
and ideology (party identification, policy preferences)
and other factors.
POLITICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE 13

Starting with political career variables, seniority emerges as crucial explanation affecting
legislators’decision to engage in constituency-oriented activities. The underlying assump-
tion is that newcomers in parliament need ‘to reinforce their credibility by championing
the interests of the constituency’(Russo 2011, 294). In contrast, senior MPs –usually high-
ranking politicians –can trade constituency work against other tasks that would favour
career advancement (Fenno 1978). Thus, in the party-controlled assembly of Chile, first-
term legislators are more likely to use the parliamentary floor to cater to district interests
(Dockendorff2020) and, in Turkey, junior legislators are more likely to focus on local issues
during televised debates than their senior counterparts (Yildirim 2020). Studies have also
tested the impact of incumbency as, in principle, it generates advantages in terms of
access to resources (experience, expertise, and visibility) and channels through which
MPs can publicize their activities. Nevertheless, the findings have not been conclusive.
For instance, Neihouser (2023) shows that the impact of incumbency on French MPs’
digital communication style depends on what MPs chose as their representational role.
MPs following a ‘constituency focus model’engage less with online communication
tools; whereas those following a ‘trustee model’, and representing nation-wide interests,
invest more in national media and personal branding, resulting in increased social media
activity. Papp’s(2015) analysis of Hungary’s party-centred parliament finds that although
incumbents run more personalized and constituency-focused campaigns, this effect does
not hold after controlling for their partisanship.
Election prospects, the second most common MP-level factor, is classically presented as
the primary reason for legislators’engagement in constituency service (Cain, Ferejohn,
and Fiorina 1984,1987; Fenno 1978). Simply put, legislators nurture connections with
Figure 5. MP-level explanations of constituency service. Source: Authors’elaboration.
Note: The graph displays the N, i.e. the number of studies.
14 E. R. SANCHES ET AL.

their constituents because they pursue re-election, and the more insecure they are about
re-election the more they will nurture connections with constituents. This assumption has
been confirmed in several studies, using different metrics of electoral safety/vulnerability,
but there are some exceptions.
Kartalis (2023) demonstrates that Greek parliamentarians table more constituency-
focused questions when they are more vulnerable. Kellermann (2013)finds similar
results for the sponsorship of early day motions in the House of Commons, while an
experimental study by Habel and Birch (2019) shows that UK MPs from safer seats are
slower to respond to citizens’requests. However, other studies indicate that electoral inse-
curity is not always a strong predictor of constituency-focused behaviour (Martin 2011).
Departing from these approaches, André, Depauw, and Martin (2015), show that the
effect of legislators’vulnerability on constituency efforts depends on electoral system
characteristics. On the one hand, district magnitude decreases constituency efforts in
non-preferential systems, and this effect grows weaker as legislators become more vulner-
able. On the other hand, district magnitude increases constituency efforts in preferential
systems, and this effect grows stronger among more vulnerable legislators.
MPs’socio-demographic profile is included in studies that explore the role of age,
gender, race/ethnicity/nationality or social class on constituency service. Anagnoson’s
(1983) study on New Zealand reveals that younger MPs do more constituency work
than older MPs and that legislators from regional cities, suburbs or urban areas tend to
spend more time doing constituency service activities than MPs from rural areas. A
survey-based study by Thomas (1992) showed preliminary evidence indicating that
both female and black politicians tended to dedicate more time to constituency service
and to prioritize different parts of their constituencies when compared to their white
male counterparts in the US. Likewise, Freeman and Richardson (1996) assessed gender
differences in constituency service provision in the US and found that female legislators
placed more emphasis on constituency work than their male counterparts.
Personal motivation/style explanations contend that constituency service is driven by
MPs’inner motivations –sense of duty, inner satisfaction, beliefs and role perceptions
(Giger, Lanz, and De Vries 2020; Norris 1997; Searing 1985). Giger, Lanz and De Vries’
(2020) experimental study with Swiss candidates illuminates how both intrinsic and
extrinsic (electoral) motivations determine candidates’response rates to service requests
from voters. The study shows, on the one hand, that candidates display high response
rates to service requests from voters both within and outside their district (canton), indi-
cating inner motivations to be responsive, regardless of their connection to the district.
On the other hand, it shows that responsiveness is higher in more competitive districts,
suggesting that extrinsic motivations for constituency work overrule intrinsic motivations.
Among the remaining explanatory factors, the role of localness –the MPs’biographical
ties to their geographic constituency –is considered. Localness carries different meanings:
whereas being born in or residing in the geographic constituency signals a sense of iden-
tity and belonging to the local community, having local-level political experience in the
geographic constituency attests to the ability to handle local problems (Shugart,
Valdini, and Suominen 2005). MPs with strong local ties may more naturally embrace
their roles as agents and promoters of the local community’s interests and thus engage
more in constituency service than MPs without these ties. Across electoral institutions,
it has been found that at least one form of localness shapes constituency service. In
POLITICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE 15

the case of Portugal, MPs who have previously been elected local representatives in their
districts table more questions on issues that are relevant for their district constituents
(Borghetto, Santana-Pereira, and Freire 2020). In Italy, MPs who have been elected in
the region in which they were born and live are more likely to table parliamentary ques-
tions mentioning it (Russo 2021)–and similar results were found in Chile (Dockendorff
2020).
The most common expectation concerning ideology is that MPs of leftist or liberal
parties prioritize constituency service more than those of right-wing parties (Butler, Kar-
powitz, and Pope 2012; Campbell and Lovenduski 2015). Butler, Karpowitz, and Pope
(2012) experimental study unveils that Democrat members of Congress (US) are more
responsive to service requests than to policy when compared to their Republican counter-
parts. Campbell and Lovenduski (2015) survey to British MPs confirms that Liberal Demo-
crat MPs are likely to prioritize constituency items in their top three roles as an MP more
often than MPs from other parties.
The role of individual characteristics, motivations and preferences cannot be over-
looked when defining the degree of constituency service, which seems to be higher
when MPs fear being unseated and when they are less experienced. However, in addition
to career-incentives –which are clearly more tested than other factors –we find that MPs’
role orientation is strongly determined by their identities (e.g. being black or female, left
or right). This should encourage further integration of different MP-level variables into
study designs.
Citizen-level explanations
Citizen-level explanations are less covered when compared with the previous expla-
nations. Figure 6 clusters different explanations, namely, what citizens value or prefer
in terms of MPs’sociodemographic and political profile and in terms of their role orien-
tation,
3
and citizens’own characteristics, that is, their own sociodemographic and political
profile.
4
The main claim is that the social and political profile of constituents and how they
evaluate MPs makes it possible to account for the variation in expectations and experi-
ences of constituency service provision.
Vivyan and Wagner’s(2015) study illustrates citizens’preferences regarding MPs from
various perspectives. Drawing on a survey-based experience with UK citizens they find
that individuals preferred MPs that prioritize spending time on the constituency and on
local issues, but are, nonetheless dedicated to their national policy work. In terms of
MPs’policy positions, citizens showed a preference for MPs that represent constituents’
interests rather than ‘their own beliefs and principles’. Additionally, while citizens gener-
ally preferred MPs from their own party (in the cases of Labour and Conservative suppor-
ters), they also support MPs who acted independently from party lines and were willing to
vote/speak out against their own leadership.
Several papers test the effect of citizens’characteristics through surveys or experiments.
For instance, Lapinski et al. (2016) investigate the question of what constituents want
from their members of Congress, drawing on several surveys conducted among citizens
in the US. The authors find that most respondents, particularly sorted partisans (Demo-
crats and Republicans) and highly educated citizens, prioritize issue/partisan represen-
tation over constituency service. Their statistical models controlled for various other
16 E. R. SANCHES ET AL.

Figure 6. Citizen-level explanations of constituency service. Source: Authors’elaboration.
Note: The graph displays the N, i.e. the number of studies.
POLITICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE 17

citizen characteristics, such as age, gender, income, and so forth. Campbell and Love-
nduski (2015), who surveyed not only MPs but also citizens about the characteristics of
a good MP, examined the impact of gender and age. They anticipated that British
women and older voters would lean more towards constituency orientation, and while
they received clearer confirmation for the latter, the evidence for the former was less con-
clusive. Landgrave (2021) uses a field experiment to investigate whether race affects how
responsive US state legislators are to requests for help with voter registration. The study
shows that state legislators are less responsive to requests from blacks than from whites,
and this difference is even more pronounced among Republican legislators (in part
explained by the racial composition of the parties). Moreover, minority state legislators
responded much more frequently to the black alias than to the white alias. Further exper-
imental studies have explored the role of class in the US (Hayes and Bishin 2024) and the
UK (Habel and Birch 2019) but found limited evidence that legislators discriminate along
those lines.
Constituency service has been defined as non-contingent, non-partisan attention to
the needs of citizens (Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina 1984); however, these studies reveal
that constituency service can be contingent and partisan, among other things. Such
bias suggests a representation gap whereby some citizens (or communities) have
difficulty accessing services.
Consequences of constituency service
As previously noted (Figure 3), the number of studies analysing constituency service as an
explanatory factor is significantly lower. In most of these studies, the primary goal is to
examine whether investing in constituency service improves MPs’electoral career –re-
nomination or re-election. However, the results are unclear. Chiru and Gherghina’s
(2020) research on Romania shows that MPs who raise local issues in their questions
and interpellations are more likely to be nominated in mayoral elections. Similarly, a
study on Nigeria shows that while sponsorship of constituency-targeted bills and
motions does not impact the decision to compete in primaries or other election positions,
it seems to impact the likelihood of winning in an election (Demarest 2021). In contrast,
Studlar and McAllister’s(1996, p. 69) study on Australia reveals that ‘dealing with constitu-
ents’grievances reduces a legislator’s vote, mainly because such activity displaces other,
more electorally advantageous party-focused activities’(69). Studies in the US (McAdams
and Johannes 1988) and in France (François and Navarro 2019) also confirm that consti-
tuency service is not what counts most for re-election. These results reveal that even if
MPs do constituency service mainly for electoral purposes, their efforts are not always
match by citizens’votes, even in countries with candidate-centred systems such as US
and Australia.
The second set of papers aims to understand the impact of constituency service on citi-
zens’evaluation/perception of either the MPs themselves or their role as representatives.
The study by Sulkin, Testa, and Usry (2015), for example, demonstrates that legislators’
copartisan, outpartisan, and independent constituents respond in different ways.
Whereas overall constituents prefer moderate legislators who do their jobs and attend
to their constituents, copartisans react negatively to Congress members’district attention
and prefer party loyalists. Finally, a third group of papers is miscellaneous, encompassing
18 E. R. SANCHES ET AL.

an extremely wide range of research goals that go from investigating the impact of con-
stituency service on the durability of an authoritarian regime, as in Singapore (Ong 2015)
or China (Distelhorst and Hou 2017) to explaining its effects on ticket splitting, as in the US
(Roscoe 2003).
As for the few studies that treat constituency as both dependent and independent vari-
ables, the work by Lawrence McKay on the UK (2020)offers a good illustration. It investi-
gates what determines citizens’evaluation of MPs’national or local focus, and the levels of
trust in MPs. The analyses show that the more MPs raise constituency-focused questions
in parliament, the more they are seen as having a constituency rather than national focus;
and that constituents’trust in an MP increases as his/her constituency-focused parliamen-
tary activity increases. Park’s(1988) study on the sources and consequences of constitu-
ency service in Korea offers additional illustration. It reveals that MPs will be more likely to
invest in constituency service for electoral reasons, among other factors, and that con-
stituents will be aware of MPs’activity and are likely to reward them at the ballot box.
This SLR sheds light on a literature that was mostly unknown, highlighting the fact that
studies which seek to tackle the consequences of constituency service focus mostly on
MPs and either their re-nomination/re-election or voters’attitudes towards them. Going
beyond MPs to explore further possible effects of constituency service is much less
common in the literature (but see Ong 2015 or Distelhorst and Hou 2017).
New roads ahead: future research on constituency service
This section proposes a conceptualization of constituency service, as well as a series of key
topics that might shape future research on the subject. Based on the SLR, it can be safely
argued that constituency service is a multidimensional concept that covers a wide range
of activities carried out by MPs to serve, represent, and distribute/allocate benefits to their
constituents across multiple arenas (the district, the parliament and the digital sphere).
Thus, Table 1 proposes a dynamic conceptual approach for measuring constituency
service, covering key arenas, dimensions and indicators. Previous studies had proposed
a two-fold typology of constituency service, considering service and representative
aspects (Arter 2018), and we take this exercise further by contemplating distributive/allo-
cation efforts, and by clarifying arenas and indicators of constituency service.
This conceptual exercise involved revisiting Eulau and Karps’(1977) four components
of responsiveness –policy, service, allocation and symbolic responsiveness –as they
overlap with some of the categories displayed in Table 1. It is striking that extant
approaches to constituency service have covered different facets of what Eulau and
Karps (1977) see as separate forms political representation/responsiveness. In this
sense, constituency service covers a wide repertoire of distributional and representational
tasks.
It is clear from Table 1 that different configurations of constituency service can be
investigated depending on whether we look at one or more dimensions, and whether
we explore one or more arenas. The service dimension, which is more widely studied
and connected to the concept, refers to a set of activities that constituents expect from
representatives, and that representatives often perceive as being part of their role as
good constituency members (Searing 1985). It includes more personalized and particular-
ized forms of casework (e.g. requests to solve individual problems or those of specific
POLITICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE 19

groups of constituents), information provision in the district, digital home-styles, or advo-
cacy in parliament. This dimension is often understood as a form of service provision
rather than a form of responsiveness (as proposed by Eulau and Karps 1977).
Representation/responsiveness encompasses activities related to MPs’efforts to rep-
resent constituents’interests and respond to their needs in more substantive ways. Repre-
sentatives are not only interested in providing a service, but more importantly, they listen
and learn about their constituents to better inform policy decisions. This may include
whether MPs respond to citizens’requests, organize consultations and meetings in the
Table 1. Constituency service: dimensions, arenas and indicators.
Dimensions
Indicators and Arenas
District Parliament Digital sphere
Service Casework: frequency of trips
home; time spent in the
constituency; proportion of
staffallocated to the district;
number of district offices;
number of cases received per
week; number of ceremonial
/ social events attended.
Information provision:
presence on TV, radio and in
newspapers; newsletters sent
to constituents; hours spent
at public information events.
Advocacy: frequency of
intercession with the
bureaucracy on behalf of
constituents.
Digital home-style: content of
posts in terms of self-
presentation strategies.
Information provision:
number of posts publicizing
the resolution of successful
constituent service cases;
actively soliciting cases from
constituents; creation/
maintenance of a personal
Website; frequency of services
provided on the webpage;
provision of an e-newsletter
service to their constituents
on their website, and number
of posts communicating with
the district about work in
parliament.
Representation/
responsiveness
Response rates: response to
citizens’requests;
completeness of answers;
intention to maintain contact
with constituents.
Outreach: number of
consultations / meetings to
actively seek out the opinion
of citizens and identification
of common concerns and
problems
Constituency-focused
activities: number of
written questions or
interpellations / speeches /
resolutions / private
members bills that mention
the constituency; tabling a
constituency-specific
legislative initiative (budget
motion or equivalent);
votes in parliament;
number of committee
meetings attended to ask
constituency-focused
questions.
Number of posts/tweets
soliciting opinions and views
digitally.
Distribution/
allocation
Number of projects allocated to
constituency development;
proportion of the total
operating budget allocated
to the constituency, access to
Constituency Development
Funds.
Raising constituency-focused
issues in party caucus
meetings; personal contact
with ministers and
ministerial office staffto
request support for a
project in the constituency;
use of committee meetings
as a forum for pursuing
issues related to their
constituency.
Number of posts publicizing
project allocation to the
constituency.
Source: Authors’elaboration.
20 E. R. SANCHES ET AL.

district to better understand their needs, develop a set of initiatives in parliament (bills,
questions, etc.) or solicit constituents’views digitally. Finally, distribution/allocation
refers to the representative’sefforts to obtain benefits for her/his constituency through
distributive policies. These include ‘taxes and transfers, and in particular the decisions
about allocations of government goods and services to identifiable localities or groups’
(Golden and Min 2013, 74). They might involve constituency development funds, subna-
tional budget allocation, but also individual and collective pork- allocations (Bussell 2019;
Golden 2003).
Building on this conceptualization, broader definitions of constituency service may
include the activities carried out by MPs in the district, in parliament and the digital
sphere, while narrower definitions focus on just some of these dimensions or arenas.
By decomposing constituency service, it is possible to explore whether its dimensions
are positively correlated and whether they behave the same across institutional settings.
For example, one crucial debate in the literature is that constituency service is less rel-
evant in CLPR than in plurality systems; this is because candidates in the latter are
elected in single-member constituencies, which means they need to have a strong
local base of support to win election. Several studies have shown that this is not
always the case and that MPs in CLPR care about their constituents (Heitshusen,
Young, and Wood 2005; Struthers 2018). However, this debate could be enriched by
investigating which types of activities are more prevalent across electoral institutions
and MPs. It may be that MPs in CLPR systems have more incentives to act in the parlia-
mentary arena than to travel to their districts for casework as they can use the floor to
raise constituency-focused questions.
So what data is particularly useful for capturing constituency service and how should it
be approached methodologically? The SLR points to plural approaches, ranging from par-
ticipant observation to text analysis via interviews and surveys, which suggests that there
is no pre-determined methodological ‘toolkit’. However, given that the field has been
dominated mainly by quantitative methods and data (Figure 2), which have produced
inconsistent findings, one way forward would be to focus on qualitative methods and
data. Such an approach would help specify mechanisms and scope conditions for the
occurrence of constituency service. More granular data on the demand-side (citizens)
of constituency service is also crucial to map citizens’attempts to make their voice
heard and/or narrow the representation gap.
The SLR has also provided an opportunity to identify gaps and topics that can inform a
future research agenda. Some works highlight the importance of the institutional capacity
variable to understand different modalities of constituency service, but also the thin line
between patronage and constituency service –a link that is worth exploring. Opalo’s
(2022) work on the implementation of constituency developments funds in Kenya
explains why MPs engage in more personalized and clientelistic forms of constituency
service. Since MPs cannot rely on strong institutions to fulfil their representational
tasks, they deploy their own personal resources to signal responsiveness to voters
(Opalo 2022). In post-war Italy, in the context of an inefficient public administration,
where appointments are made according to political patronage rather than meritocracy,
Golden (2003)finds that incumbents have more incentive to develop compensatory
forms of constituency service. The study reveals that weak institutions can be purposely
sustained by both politicians and voters for instrumental reasons: the former to pursue
POLITICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE 21

electoral gains and the latter to obtain particular benefits (Golden 2003). Brouard et al.’s
(2013, 157) study offers additional insight on weak institutional capacity by arguing that
the institutional weakness of France’s National Assembly partly explains why MPs prefer
constituency work over parliamentary work.
The role of parties is also neglected, particularly in party-centred systems where con-
stituency service is seen as less valuable. Notwithstanding, a recent study on South Africa
(Sanches and Kartalis 2024) reveals that constituency service is shaped by the type of
party and whether or not the MPs is representing a stronghold, thus revealing that
MPs may find good reasons to cater to district interests in party-centred environments.
Another promising research avenue emerges from a set of studies that seeks to explore
the meaning and effects of constituency service in non-democratic governments (such as
hybrid or authoritarian regimes) as highlighted by studies on Pakistan (Mangi, Soomro,
and Larik 2021), Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan (Somfalvy 2021), Morocco and Algeria (Ben-
stead 2016), Singapore (Ong 2015), China (Distelhorst and Hou 2017) and Malaysia (Weiss
2020). These studies have provided the opportunity to investigate constituency service in
less conducive environments showing how it can contribute to ‘entrench authoritarianism
and deter democratic pressures’(Ong 2015, 363) and how it often overlaps with the devel-
opment of clientelist relations between MPs and citizens (Weiss 2020). Future research
should try to explore not only the dominant forms of constituency service in more auto-
cratic settings, but also its relations with personalized forms of clientelism and with
regime survival more broadly.
The SLR also suggests the need for more studies focusing on MPs’strategies and cal-
culations. For example, Saalfeld (2011)offers important contributions to understanding
electoral connection between voters and the MPs that go beyond the geographic bound-
aries of the constituency. His study shows that British MPs respond to electoral incentives
arising from the socio-demographic composition of their constituencies regardless of
their ethnic status. Minority and non-minority MPs tend to ask more questions that
address minority concerns if they represent constituencies with a high share of non-
White residents. While the study also finds that MPs with a visible-minority status do
tend to ask significantly more questions about ethnic diversity and equality issues, the
general findings point to the importance of analysing the representative connection
between MPs and social groups that are geographically dispersed.
Another relevant question that warrants further research is why MPs prefer certain
forms of constituency-focused activities to others. In the US, senior legislators prefer
pork barrel activities over casework (Ellickson and Whistler 2001), while in Turkey legis-
lators will engage in tasks that please the party leadership –submitting questions in par-
liament rather than doing casework and pork barrel activities if they perceive the party
leader to be the most influential actor in re-selection (Ciftci and Yildirim 2019). These
two studies are among the few that have aimed to explain why MPs select certain consti-
tuency-focused activities over others.
More research is also needed to better understand the classical question posed by Fenno
(1978): ‘What does an elected representative see when he or she sees a constituency?’. Miler
(2007) addresses this puzzle in innovative ways and shows, for example, that MPs see the
constituents about whom they have more information, who offers them more (monetary)
contributions or raise issues that are familiar to them. In relation to this, comparative
approaches would help explore whether MPs’perceptions of their constituency and
22 E. R. SANCHES ET AL.

constituency service vary across electoral systems, district and MPs characteristics. There is
also a lack of studies that can inform us not only about citizens’views but also the channels
and mechanisms they use to make themselves ‘visible’and heard by their representatives.
Scholars have also expanded on the limits of how we perceive and study the concept
of constituency service by borrowing –both methodologically and theoretically –from
other scientific areas, demonstrating how the concept can be understood through
lenses other than those of political science. This is true for three studies in our sample,
all focusing on the UK: Jackson and Lilleker (2004) take on British MPs from a perspective
of media, communication, and public relations, Warner’s(2021) social work approach
(that employs notions such as emotions and empathy to characterize MPs’constituency
service), and Vivyan and Wagner (2015) who use a marketing-inspired methodological
approach to understand citizen preferences. This suggests that more can be done from
a multidisciplinary perspective.
Moving beyond the prominence of quantitative approaches for studying constituency
service, it could be fruitful to retrieve the ethnographic approach found in Fenno’s(1978)
seminal studies and follow the legislators in their travels, encounters, and everyday leg-
islative activities. The latter would possibly intertwine and contribute to ongoing research
on the everyday life of parliaments and legislators (e.g. Crewe 2021). Finally, in an area
predominantly characterized by case studies (particularly western democracies), com-
parative work and more focus on Global South countries would be particularly welcome.
Conclusion
Constituency service is a key element of representation and feeds democratic legitimacy
and accountability. However, an SLR is justified to better clarify the state of the field given
that our understanding of constituency service, how it varies and what its consequences
are remain contested. While we cannot discard of possibility of having accidentally
excluded studies from the sample due to the plethora of meanings, terms and activities
associated with constituency service, our results are revealing and meet the goals of an
SLR. Constituency service has not been a mainstream topic of research in political
science literature for a long time and yet our review suggests that this trend is shifting.
The previous decade has presented us with new and exciting works that attempt to
broaden the scope of this concept, via innovative methodological approaches (such as
experiments, and mixed-methods), and more diverse case-studies (as is the case of auto-
cracies and newer democracies from the Global South).
A lot has changed since Fenno (1978) and, while his definition of constituency service
remains as relevant as ever, notions such as the way citizens perceive politicians and what
they expect from them, the means of communication between constituents and elected
officials, and how politicians see themselves and their rolesas representatives have gradually
evolved over time. First, while there is still a clear focus on service activities (e.g. casework,
home-styles), we are becoming increasingly aware of MPs’representation/responsiveness
activities (e.g. constituency-focused parliamentary activities) and distributive/allocation activi-
ties (e.g. project and budget allocation). Second, constituency service provisionvaries due to
a wide range of macro-level (e.g. political institutions, district characteristics, and contextual
factors), MP-level (e.g. political career, election prospects, ideology, and motivation) and
citizen-level factors (e.g. socio-demographics, and political profiles). This makes it an exciting
POLITICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE 23

concept to focus on and future research –for example a meta-analysis –should help illumi-
nate the most decisive set ofexplantory variables. Third, the research on the consequences of
constituency service is relatively scarce, and mainly addresses its effects on the evaluation of
MPs or their re-selection/re-election chances. Understanding the consequences of constitu-
ency service is important because it expresses the strength and vitality of the links between
voters and representatives.
The study also advanced a dynamic conceptual approach for studying constituency
service, which allows the mapping and measuring of the activities pursed by MPs to
serve, represent and distribute goods to their constituencies, across different arenas (dis-
trict, parliament, and digital sphere). This conceptualization can inform both broader and
narrower operationalizations of constituency service. Finally, we identified several topics
for developing a future research agenda. On the theoretical front, exploring the impact of
(weak)institutional capacity, possible areas of overlap between clientelism and constitu-
ency service, the connection between MPs and geographically dispersed constituencies,
and the consequences of constituency service, may prove itself extremely valuable to
generate new knowledge and evidence on this phenomenon. On the methodological
front, more research is needed on (non)democratic governments and Global South
countries, in order to encourage within-region and cross-regional comparisons. Addition-
ally, methodological pluralism and multidisciplinary lenses can offer new insights to a
more complete understanding of constituency service.
Notes
1. Earlier versions of this list were presented and discussed at the Project ‘How members of par-
liament in Africa represent their constituencies –HOME’(Ref. PTDC/CPO/4796/2020; https://
doi.org/10.54499/PTDC/CPO-CPO/4796/2020) meetings. Keywords were also added follow-
ing reviewers’recommendations.
2. While some local ties refer to socio-demographics (being born or native in the district) and
other to political career (having been a politician in the district), we decided to treat localness
as a category as it is a very crucial concept in the field.
3. See codebook (supplementary material) for the full list of variables coded as MPs’sociodemo-
graphic profile.
4. See codebook (supplementary material) for the full list of variables coded as Citizens’socio-
demographic and political profile.
Acknowledgements
The authors are extremely thankful to the journal’s Editors and five anonymous reviewers for their
careful reading and constructive critique.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
Project ‘How Members of Parliament in Africa Represent their Constituencies-HOME’, funded by the
Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (Ref. PTDC/CPO/4796/2020; https://doi.org/
10.54499/PTDC/CPO-CPO/4796/2020).
24 E. R. SANCHES ET AL.

ORCID
Edalina Rodrigues Sanches http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6007-3680
João Conduto http://orcid.org/0009-0002-4541-6803
André Marinha http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4813-6869
Ana Espírito-Santo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4059-8129
References
Adler, E. S., C. E. Gent, and C. B. Overmeyer. 1998.“The Home Style Homepage: Legislator Use of the
World Wide Web for Constituency Contact.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (4): 585–595. https://
doi.org/10.2307/440242.
Anagnoson, J. T. 1983.“Home Style in New Zealand.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 8 (2): 157–
175. http://www.jstor.org/stable/439426.
Anagnoson, J. T. 1991.“Home Style in New Zealand.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 16 (3): 375–392.
https://doi.org/10.2307/440103.
André, A., J. Bradbury, and S. Depauw. 2014.“Constituency Service in Multi-Level Democracies.”
Regional and Federal Studies 24 (2): 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2013.858708.
André, A., and S. Depauw. 2013.“Electoral Competition and the Constituent-Representative
Relationship.”World Political Science Review 9 (1): 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1515/wpsr-2013-
0013.
André, A., S. Depauw, and S. Martin. 2015.“Electoral Systems and Legislators’Constituency Effort:
The Mediating Effect of Electoral Vulnerability.”Comparative Political Studies 48 (4): 464–496.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414014545512.
Arter, D. 2018.“The What, Why’s and How’s of Constituency Service.”Representation 54 (1): 5–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2017.1396240.
Bandau, F. 2022.“What Explains the Electoral Crisis of Social Democracy? A Systematic Review of the
Literature.”Government and Opposition 50 (1): 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2022.10.
Bárcena Juárez, S. A., and Y. P. Kerevel. 2021.“Communicative Responsiveness in the Mexican
Senate: A Field Experiment.”Democratization 28 (8): 1387–1405. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13510347.2021.1907348.
Baxter, G., R. Marcella, and M. O’Shea. 2016.“Members of the Scottish Parliament on Twitter: Good
Constituency Men (and Women)?”Aslib Journal of Information Management 68 (4): 428–447.
https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-02-2016-0010.
Benstead, L. J. 2016.“Why Quotas Are Needed to Improve Women’s Access to Services in
Clientelistic Regimes.”Governance 29 (2): 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12162.
Borghetto, E., J. Santana-Pereira, and A. Freire. 2020.“Parliamentary Questions as an Instrument for
Geographic Representation: The Hard Case of Portugal.”Swiss Political Science Review 26 (1): 10–
30. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12387.
Bradbury, J. 2007.“Conclusion.”Regional and Federal Studies 17 (1): 147–158. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13597560701189677.
Brouard, S., O. Costa, E. Kerrouche, and T. Schnatterer. 2013.“Why Do French MPs Focus More on
Constituency Work than on Parliamentary Work?”The Journal of Legislative Studies 19 (2): 141–
159. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2013.787194.
Bussell, J. 2019.Clients and Constituents: Political Responsiveness in Patronage Democracies.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Butler, D. M., C. F. Karpowitz, and J. C. Pope. 2012.“A Field Experiment on Legislators Home Styles:
Service Versus Policy.”Journal of Politics 74 (2): 474–486. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0022381611001708.
Cain, B. E., J. A. Ferejohn, and M. P. Fiorina. 1984.“The Constituency Service Basis of the Personal
Vote for U.S. Representatives and British Members of Parliament.”The American Political
Science Review 78 (1): 110–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961252.
Cain, B., J. Ferejohn, and M. Fiorina. 1987.The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral
Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
POLITICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE 25

Campbell, R., and J. Lovenduski. 2015.“What Should MPs Do? Public and Parliamentarians’Views
Compared.”Parliamentary Affairs 68 (4): 690–708. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsu020.
Cancela, J., and B. Geys. 2016.“Explaining Voter Turnout: A Meta-Analysis of National and
Subnational Elections.”Electoral Studies 42:264–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.03.
005.
Chiru, M. 2018.“The Electoral Value of Constituency-Oriented Parliamentary Questions in Hungary
and Romania.”Parliamentary Affairs 71 (4): 950–969. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsx050.
Chiru, M., and S. Gherghina. 2020.“National Games for Local Gains: Legislative Activity, Party
Organization and Candidate Selection.”Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 30 (1):
64–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2018.1537280.
Ciftci, S., and T. M. Yildirim. 2019.“Hiding Behind the Party Brand or Currying Favor with
Constituents: Why Do Representatives Engage in Different Types of Constituency-Oriented
Behavior?”Party Politics 25 (3): 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068817720438.
Costa, O., and C. Poyet. 2016.“Back to Their Roots: French MPs in Their District.”French Politics 14 (4):
406–438. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-016-0014-5.
Crewe, E. 2021.An Anthropology of Parliaments. Entanglements in Democratic Politics. London:
Routledge.
Crisp, B. F., and W. M. Simoneau. 2017.“Electoral Systems and Constituency Service.”In The Oxford
Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by E. S. Herron, R. J. Pekkanen, and M. S. Shugart, 345–363.
Oxford University Press.
Dacombe, R. 2018.“Systematic Reviews in Political Science: What Can the Approach Contribute to
Political Research?”Political Studies Review 16 (2): 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1478929916680641.
Demarest, L. 2021.“Elite Clientelism in Nigeria: The Role of Parties in Weakening Legislator-Voter
Ties.”Party Politics 28 (5): 939–953. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688211030219.
Distelhorst, G., and Y. Hou. 2017.“Constituency Service Under Nondemocratic Rule: Evidence from
China.”Journal of Politics 79 (3): 1024–1040. https://doi.org/10.1086/690948.
Dockendorff,A.2020.“When Do Legislators Respond to Their Constituencies in Party Controlled
Assemblies? Evidence from Chile.”Parliamentary Affairs 73 (2): 408–428.
Dovi, S. 2015.“Hanna Pitkin, the Concept of Representation.”In The Oxford Handbook of Classics in
Contemporary Political Theory, edited by J. T. Levy, 1–15. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellickson, M. C., and D. E. Whistler. 2001.“Explaining State Legislators’Casework and Public Resource
Allocations.”Political Research Quarterly 54 (3): 553–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/
106591290105400304.
Eulau, H., and P. D. Karps. 1977.“The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of
Responsiveness.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 2 (3): 233–254. https://doi.org/10.2307/439340.
Fenno, R. F. 1978.Home Style. House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little Brown.
François, A., and J. Navarro. 2019.“Voters Reward Hard-Working MPs: Empirical Evidence from the
French Legislative Elections.”European Political Science Review 11 (4): 469–483. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S1755773919000274.
Franks, C. E. S. 2007.“Members and Constituency Roles in the Canadian Federal System.”Regional
and Federal Studies 17 (1): 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597560701189602.
Freeman, Patricia K., and Lilliard E. Richardson. 1996.“Explaining Variation in Casework among State
Legislators.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 21 (1): 41–56. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/440157.
Accessed 9 July 2024.
Gervais, B. T., and W. C. Wilson. 2019.“New Media for the New Electorate? Congressional Outreach to
Latinos on Twitter.”Politics, Groups, and Identities 7 (2): 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21565503.2017.1358186.
Giger, N., S. Lanz, and C. De Vries. 2020.“The Motivational Basis of Constituency Work: How Intrinsic
and Extrinsic Motivations Interact.”Political Science Research and Methods 8 (3): 493–508. https://
doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2019.19.
Golden, M. A. 2003.“Electoral Connections: The Effects of the Personal Vote on Political Patronage,
Bureaucracy and Legislation in Postwar Italy.”British Journal of Political Science 33 (2): 189–212.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123403000085.
26 E. R. SANCHES ET AL.

Golden, M., and B. Min. 2013.“Distributive Politics Around the World.”Annual Review of Political
Science 16 (1): 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052209-121553.
Habel, P., and S. Birch. 2019.“A Field Experiment on the Effects of Ethnicity and Socioeconomic
Status on the Quality of Representation.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 44 (3): 389–420. https://
doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12230.
Hayes, T. J., and B. G. Bishin. 2024.“Do Elected Officials Serve the Poor on Health Care? Evidence
from a Field Experiment on Members of Congress and State Legislators.”Social Science Journal
61 (1): 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1783963.
Heitshusen, V., G. Young, and D. M. Wood. 2005.“Electoral Context and MP Constituency Focus in
Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.”American Journal of Political
Science 49 (1): 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00108.x.
Jackson, N. A., and D. G. Lilleker. 2004.“Just Public Relations or an Attempt at Interaction?: British
MPs in the Press, on the Web and ‘in Your Face.”European Journal of Communication 19 (4):
507–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323104047671.
Jackson, N., and D. Lilleker. 2011.“Microblogging, Constituency Service and Impression
Management: UK MPs and the Use of Twitter.”Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (1): 86–105.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2011.545181.
Kartalis, Y. 2023.“Parliamentary Current Questions’Constituency Focus Under Times of Crisis: An
Examination of the Greek Case.”Journal of Legislative Studies 29 (2): 213–233. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13572334.2021.1977897.
Kellermann, M. 2013.“Sponsoring Early Day Motions in the British House of Commons as a Response
to Electoral Vulnerability.”Political Science Research and Methods 1 (2): 263–280. https://doi.org/
10.1017/psrm.2013.19.
Khan, A., S. Krishnan, and A. Dhir. 2021.“Electronic Government and Corruption: Systematic
Literature Review, Framework, and Agenda for Future Research.”Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 167:120737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120737.
Koop, R. 2012.“Party Constituency Associations and the Service, Policy and Symbolic
Responsiveness of Canadian Members of Parliament.”Canadian Journal of Political Science 45
(2): 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423912000364.
Lancaster, T. D. 1986.“Electoral Structures and Pork Barrel Politics.”International Political Science
Review 7 (1): 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251218600700107.
Landgrave, M. 2021.“Do Politicians Ethnically Discriminate Against Hispanics? Evidence from a Field
Experiment with State Legislative Offices.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 46 (3): 621–636. https://
doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12311.
Lapinski, J., M. Levendusky, K. Winneg, and K. H. Jamieson. 2016.“What Do Citizens Want from Their
Member of Congress?”Political Research Quarterly 69 (3): 535–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1065912916652240.
Liberati, A., D. G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P. C. Gøtzsche, J. P. Ioannidis, M. Clarke, P. J.
Devereaux, J. Kleijnen, and D. Moher. 2009.“The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation
and Elaboration.”PLoS Medicine 6 (7): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
Lindberg, S. I. 2010.“What Accountability Pressures Do MPs in Africa Face and How do They
Respond? Evidence from Ghana.”Journal of Modern African Studies 48 (1): 117–142. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0022278X09990243.
Lisi, M., R. Oliveira, and J. Loureiro. 2023.“Looking for Ariadne’s Thread: A Systematic Review on
Party-Group Relations in the Last 20 Years.”Politics 43 (4): 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/
02633957211030399.
Mangi, S. N., B. A. Soomro, and A. R. Larik. 2021.“Rich Men’s Club. A Case Study of the National
Assembly of Pakistan, 1970–2008.”Parliaments, Estates and Representation 41 (1): 75–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02606755.2021.1877880.
Martin, S. 2011.“Using Parliamentary Questions to Measure Constituency Focus: An Application to
the Irish Case.”Political Studies 59 (2): 472–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00885.x.
Martin, S. 2013.“Is All Politics Local? The Role-Orientation of Irish Parliamentarians Towards Foreign
Policy.”Irish Political Studies 28 (1): 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2012.746956.
POLITICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE 27

Mayhew, D. R. 1974.Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mcadams, J. C., and J.R. Johannes. 1988.“Congressmen, Perquisites, and Elections.”Journal of Politics
50 (2): 412–439.
McKay, L. 2020.“Does Constituency Focus Improve Attitudes to MPs? A Test for the UK.”Journal of
Legislative Studies 26 (1): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2020.1726635.
Middleton, A. 2019.“The Personal Vote, Electoral Experience, and Local Connections: Explaining
Retirement Underperformance at UK Elections 1987–2010.”Politics 39 (2): 137–153. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0263395718754717.
Miler, K. C. 2007.“The View from the Hill: Legislative Perceptions of the District.”Legislative Studies
Quarterly 32 (4): 597–628. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298007782398477.
Miljand, M. 2020.“Using Systematic Review Methods to Evaluate Environmental Public Policy:
Methodological Challenges and Potential Usefulness.”Environmental Science and Policy
105:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.008.
Munn, Z., M. D. Peters, C. Stern, C. Tufanaru, A. McArthur, and E. Aromataris. 2018.“Systematic
Review or Scoping Review? Guidance for Authors When Choosing Between a Systematic or
Scoping Review Approach.”Medical Research Methodology 18 (143): 1–7.
Neihouser, M. 2023.“Representation Style and Digital Communication: The Case of the Online
Presence of French MPs Elected in 2017.”Journal of Legislative Studies 29 (1): 78–95. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2021.1941544.
Norris, P. 1996.“The Nolan Committee: Financial Interests and Constituency Service.”Government
and Opposition 31 (4): 441–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.1996.tb01200.x.
Norris, P. 1997.“The Puzzle of Constituency Service.”The Journal of Legislative Studies 3 (2): 29–49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13572339708420508.
O’Leary, E. 2011.“The Constituency Orientation of Modern TDs.”Irish Political Studies 26 (3): 329–343.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2011.593737.
Ong, E. 2015.“Complementary Institutions in Authoritarian Regimes: The Everyday Politics of
Constituency Service in Singapore.”Journal of East Asian Studies 15 (3): 361–390. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1598240800009115.
Opalo, K. O. 2022.“Formalizing Clientelism in Kenya from Harambee to the Constituency
Development Fund.”World Development 152:1–11.
Papp, Z. 2015.“Campaign-Personalization and Constituency Focus in a Mixed-Member Electoral
System. The Case of Hungary.”World Political Science 11:75–95. https://doi.org/10.1515/wps-
2015-0001.
Park, C. W. 1988.“Constituency Representation in Korea: Sources and Consequences.”Legislative
Studies Quarterly 13 (2): 225–242. https://doi.org/10.2307/439823.
Roscoe, D. D. 2003.“The Choosers or the Choices? Voter Characteristics and the Structure of
Electoral Competition as Explanations for Ticket Splitting.”Journal of Politics 65 (4): 1147–1164.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00130.
Russell, M., and J. Bradbury. 2007.“The Constituency Work of Scottish and Welsh MPs: Adjusting to
Devolution.”Regional and Federal Studies 17 (1): 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13597560701189644.
Russo, F. 2011.“The Constituency as a Focus of Representation: Studying the Italian Case Through
the Analysis of Parliamentary Questions.”Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (3): 290–301. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13572334.2011.595122.
Russo, F. 2021.“Going Local: Parliamentary Questions as a Means of Territorial Representation in the
Italian Parliament.”Political Studies Review 19 (3): 410–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1478929920986798.
Saalfeld, T. 2011.“Parliamentary Questions as Instruments Questions as Instruments of Substantive
Representation: Visible Minorities in the UK House of Commons, 2005–10.”Journal of Legislative
Studies 17 (3): 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2011.595121.
Sanches, E. R., and Y. Kartalis. 2024.“Constituency Focus in Party-Centered Systems: How Individual,
Party, and District-Level Factors Shape Parliamentary Questions in South Africa.”Legislative
Studies Quarterly.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lsq.12453.
28 E. R. SANCHES ET AL.