Earlier chapters documented how support for the political system in the United States and Western Europe typically has fluctuated during recent decades, including confidence in core regime institutions as well as satisfaction with democracy. The endorsement of democratic values is almost universal today, although satisfaction with democracy varied sharply over time and within each type of region, such as the contrasts found among Africans living in Ghana, Burkina Faso, and Ethiopia, or among Europeans in Italy, Austria, and Norway. What can explain these patterns?

The idea that regime performance matters, at least at some level, for public satisfaction with the workings of democracy, is the explanation favored by rational choice theories. This chapter considers how the underlying assumptions and claims embodied in these accounts differ from cultural explanations. At first sight, the rational choice argument appears straightforward, but what criteria might the public use to evaluate performance? Is the contemporary record of the regime compared against public expectations or independent indices? Party manifestos and leadership promises or the past performance of successive administrations? Neighboring countries or global conditions? There is no consensus in the research literature and several alternative factors may prove important in this regard, each generating certain testable propositions. Part I of this chapter focuses upon process accounts that emphasize that judgments of regime performance are based primarily upon retrospective evaluations of the quality of underlying democratic procedures, exemplified by the perceived fairness of elections, the responsiveness and accountability of elected representatives, and the honesty and probity of public officials.