Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T11:14:27.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Electoral System, the Party System and Accountability in Parliamentary Government

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2020

CHRISTOPHER KAM Open the ORCID record for CHRISTOPHER KAM [Opens in a new window] ,
ANTHONY M. BERTELLI Open the ORCID record for ANTHONY M. BERTELLI [Opens in a new window]  and
ALEXANDER HELD Open the ORCID record for ALEXANDER HELD [Opens in a new window]
CHRISTOPHER KAM*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
ANTHONY M. BERTELLI*
Affiliation:
Bocconi University and Pennsylvania State University
ALEXANDER HELD*
Affiliation:
Trinity College Dublin
*
Christopher Kam, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia, chris.kam@ubc.ca.
Anthony M. Bertelli, Professor of Political Science, Bocconi University; Sherwin-Whitmore Professor of Public Policy and Political Science, Bocconi University and Pennsylvania State University, anthony.bertelli@unibocconi.it.
Alexander Held, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin, helda@tcd.ie.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Electoral accountability requires that voters have the ability to constrain the incumbent government’s policy-making power. We express the necessary conditions for this claim as an accountability identity in which the electoral system and the party system interact to shape the accountability of parliamentary governments. Data from 400 parliamentary elections between 1948 and 2012 show that electoral accountability is contingent on the party system’s bipolarity, for example, with parties arrayed in two distinct blocs. Proportional electoral systems achieve accountability as well as majoritarian ones when bipolarity is strong but not when it is weak. This is because bipolarity decreases the number of connected coalitions that incumbent parties can join to preserve their policy-making power. Our results underscore the limitations that party systems place on electoral reform and the benefits that bipolarity offers for clarifying voters’ choices and intensifying electoral competition.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 114 , Issue 3 , August 2020 , pp. 744 - 760
Copyright
© American Political Science Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We thank participants at the Southern California Comparative Political Institutions meetings, participants at seminars at the London School of Economics, King’s College London, the University of Essex, University of California-San Diego, University of Lausanne, and the University of Mannheim, and Jose Antonio Cheibub, Shaun Bowler, Lucy Barnes, and G. Bingham Powell Jr. for their helpful comments. Replication data and code and the appendix can be found at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5QBS9A

References

Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 2004. “Party System Compactness: Measurement and Consequences.” Political Analysis 12 (1): 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J. 2000. “Economic Voting and Political Context: A Comparative Perspective.” Electoral Studies 19 (2): 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J. 2007. “The End of Economic Voting? Contingency Dilemmas and the Limits of Democratic Accountability.” Annual Review of Political Science 10 (1): 271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Josepine T., and Money, Jeannette. 2009. “The Spatial Structure of Party Competition: Party Dispersion within a Finite Policy Space.” British Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 805–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barro, Robert J. 1973. “The Control of Politicians: An Economic Model.” Public Choice 14 (1): 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtson, Åsa. 2004. “Economic Voting: The Effect of Political Context, Volatility and Turnout on Voters’ Assignment of Responsibility.” European Journal of Political Research 43 (5): 749–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, Robin E., Budge, Ian, and McDonald, Michael D.. 2018. “Jettisoning Illusions about the Median Mandate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 43 (1): 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1948. “On the Rationale of Group Decision-making.” Journal of Political Economy 56 (1): 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blondel, Jean. 1968. “Party Systems and Patterns of Government in Western Democracies.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 1 (2): 180–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix, Carles. 2007. “Emergence of Parties and Party Systems.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, eds. Boix, Carles and Stokes, Susan C.. New York: Oxford University Press, 499–521.Google Scholar
Bormann, Nils-Christian, and Golder, Matt. 2013. “Democratic Electoral Systems around the World, 1946-2011.” Electoral Studies 32 (2): 360–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borowiak, Craig T. 2011. Accountability and Democracy: The Pitfalls and Promise of Popular Control. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John M., and Hix, Simon. 2011. “The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low-Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheibub, José Antonio, and Przeworski, Adam. 1999. “Democracy, Elections, and Accountability for Economic Outcomes.” In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, eds. Przeworski, Adam, Stokes, Susan C., and Manin, Bernard. New York: Cambridge University Press, 222–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 2008. “The Quantity and the Quality of Party Systems: Party System Polarization, Its Measurement, and Its Consequences.” Comparative Political Studies 41 (7): 899–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Swaan, Abram. 1973. Coalition Theories and Government Formation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Döring, Holger, and Manow, Philip. 2012. “Parliament and Government Composition Database (ParlGov): An Infrastructure for Empirical Information on Parties, Elections and Governments in Modern Democracies.” Unpublished paper, Version 12/10, 15 October.Google Scholar
Dow, Jay K. 2011. “Party-system Extremism in Majoritarian and Proportional Electoral Systems.” British Journal of Political Science 41 (2): 241–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duch, Raymond M., and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2008. The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence. 2007. “The Variance Matters: How Party Systems Represent the Preferences of Voters.” The Journal of Politics 69 (1): 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John. 1986. “Incumbent Performance and Electoral Control.” Public choice 50 (1–3): 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Franzmann, Simon, and Kaiser, Andre. 2006. “Locating Political Parties in Policy Space: A Reanalysis of Party Manifesto Data.” Party Politics 12 (2): 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamson, William. 1961. “A Theory of Coalition Formation.” American Sociological Review 26 (3): 373–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, Vladimir O. 1966. The Responsible Electorate. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 2007. “Party Systems.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, eds. Boix, Carles and Stokes, Susan C.. New York: Oxford University Press, 522–554.Google Scholar
Laakso, M., and Taagepera, R.. 1979. ““Effective” Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 12 (1): 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael. 1998. “Models of Government Formation.” Annual Review of Political Science 1 (1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2015. “The Basic Arithmetic of Legislative Decisions.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (2): 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael J., and Budge, Ian. 1992. Party Policy and Government Coalitions. New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael J., and Shepsle, Kenneth A.. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael J., and Schofield, Norman. 1990. Multiparty Government: the Politics of Coalition in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael. 1986. “Comparative Economic Voting: Britain, France, Germany, Italy.” American Journal of Political Science 30 (2): 315–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1988. Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2010. “Political Polarization and Cabinet Stability in Multiparty Systems: A Social Networks Analysis of European Parliaments, 1945-98.” British Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 805–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maravall, José María. 2007. “Accountability and the Survival of Governments.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, eds. Boix, Carles and Stokes, Susan C.. New York: Oxford University Press, 910–939.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2003. “Wasting Time? The Impact of Ideology and Size on Delay in Coalition Formation.” British Journal of Political Science 33 (2): 323–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2004. “Policing the Bargain: Coalition Government and Parliamentary Scrutiny.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (1): 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2005. “Coalition Policymaking and Legislative Review.” American Political Science Review 99 (1): 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2001. “Government Formation in Parliamentary Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Schofield, Norman. 1986. “Structural Instability of the Core.” Journal of Mathematical Economics 15 (3): 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang C., and Strøm, Kaare. 2001. “Coalition Governance in Western Europe: An Introduction.” In Coalition Governments in Western Europe, eds. Müller, Wolfgang C. and Strøm, Kaare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–32.Google Scholar
Nadeau, Richard, Niemi, Richard G., and Yoshinaka, Antoine. 2002. “A Cross-national Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context across Time and Nations.” Electoral Studies 21 (3): 403–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nannestad, Peter, and Paldam, Martin. 1994. “The VP-Function: A Survey of the Literature on Vote and Popularity Functions After 25 Years.” Public Choice 79 (3–4): 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, Charles R. 1967. “A Notion of Equilibrium and its Possibility under Majority Rule.” American Economic Review 57 (4): 787–806.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2004. “The Quality of Democracy: The Chain of Responsiveness.” Journal of Democracy 15 (4): 92–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham, and Whitten, Guy D.. 1993. “A Cross-national Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Stokes, Susan C., and Manin, Bernard. 1999. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, Douglas W. 1971. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, David, and Hellwig, Timothy. 2010. “Elections and Accountability for the Economy: A Conceptual and Empirical Reassessment.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 20 (4): 393–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1942. Party Government. New York: Rinehart.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1993. “Political Competitition and Multiparty Coalition Governments.” European Journal of Political Research 23 (1): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, Norman, and Sened, Itai. 2006. Multiparty Democracy: Elections and Legislative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seki, Katsunori, and Williams, Laron K.. 2014. “Updating the Party Government Data Set.” Electoral Studies 34: 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigelman, Lee, and Yough, Syng Nam. 1978. “Left-right Polarization in National Party Systems: A Cross-national Analysis.” Comparative Political Studies 11 (3): 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strøm, Kaare. 1984. “Minority Governments in Parliamentary Democracies: The Rationality of Nonwinning Cabinet Solutions.” Comparative Political Studies 17 (2): 199–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taagepera, Rein, and Shugart, Matthew Soberg. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2007. “Clarity of Responsibility and Corruption.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 218–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thies, Michael F. 2001. “Keeping Tabs on Partners: The Logic of Delegation in Coalition Governments.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (3): 580–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, Paul V. 1994. Government Survival in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Warwick, Paul V. 2000. “Policy Horizons in West European Parliamentary Systems.” European Journal of Political Research 38 (1): 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Kam et al. Dataset

Dataset https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5QBS9A
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Kam et al. supplementary material

Kam et al. supplementary material

Download Kam et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.1 MB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.