Policy Preference Congruence between Citizens and Candidates with Disabilities

Around one in five people live with a disability, making them an important minority group in societies across the world. It is widely recognised that the numbers are far lower among political representatives. While this descriptive underrepresentation may be criticised for various reasons, one argument is that it might prevent the interests and views of citizens with disabilities from being adequately represented. The question whether citizens are better represented by politicians who are ‘like them’ is one of the most prominent themes in representation research. Yet, while many studies have explored it with respect to gender and other social groups, the representation of people with disabilities has received scant attention. Meanwhile, evidence suggests that policy preferences indeed differ between citizens with and without disabilities. This study investigates whether these patterns are reflected among political elites, which may be considered a precondition for the descriptive-substantive representation link. Drawing on data from the 2015 British Election Study and the Representative Audit of Britain candidate survey, the study compares the preferences of political candidates and citizens with and without disabilities with respect to several policy dimensions and policy priorities. It pays special attention to the role of political parties. The findings provide important insights to research on the descriptive-substantive representation nexus as well as the public debate on the political integration of people with disabilities. They may help us explain the low levels of political efficacy and trust that have been observed among citizens with disabilities.