For decades, public and academic debate has been dominated by an emphasis on the importance of substantive representation. However, the question of whether and to what extent descriptive representation implies substantive representation remains a subject of ongoing debate within representation research (e.g., Mansbridge 2005, Mügge and Erzeel 2016; Hayes and Hibbing 2017; Gershon et al. 2019). As important as Hanna Pitkin’s seminal differentiation is, the – seemingly – simpler concept of descriptive representation therefore remains significant. However, post-migrant dynamics within European democracies, with an increasing proportion of the population with a personal or family history of immigration, clearly suggest that the society to be represented is subject to change. This necessitates a re-evaluation of how political representation is understood and practiced.
As of yet, two logics shape the understanding of representation gaps, particularly in the study of the (under)representation of racial and ethnic minorities: (1) The logic of legitimacy, which considers the extent to which the social structure of a society is reflected in the composition of central institutions and measures representation gaps by the proportion of certain groups in the population as a whole. (2) The logic of selection, focusing on the role of parties and their selection logics and measuring underrepresentation in relation to the eligible population. However, it is necessary to consider how different theoretical and methodological perspectives affect the way we understand underrepresentation, as different conclusions are drawn depending on the logic applied. Moreover, both logics neglect the aspect of identity. By proposing a third logic of identity (3), we argue that in order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of post-migrant representation, it is necessary to reflect on the essentialising and potentially alienating nature of statistical categories that do not necessarily have to correspond to self-identifications. To this end, we address the following research question: To what extent do varying theoretical premises and methodological approaches change the way representation gaps are assessed?
By comparing both the population's and the political representatives' side, our study contrasts these three logics to evaluate representation gaps in the case of Germany, applying a model comparison approach in our research design. Measuring migration-related diversity in Germany most often involves using the much-criticised statistical category of 'migrant background'. The case thus allows for a comparison of differences between concepts based on self- and external identification of racialised and ethnic identities. Two novel survey datasets will be the basis for conceptual conclusions. First, a representative population survey, in which an above-average majority of respondents have a statistical migrant background, and second an online survey of all local elected officials in German major cities (≥ 100,000 residents). Both include ethnic and cultural self-identifications as well as conventional statistical categorisations.
Our results show that representation gaps are linked to democratic deficits and that it is worth paying particular attention to those excluded from electoral participation. We thereby address emerging questions raised by significant demographic shifts in modern democracies and provide new perspectives on political (under)representation in terms of contemporary dynamics within representative systems.
