Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:58:56.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategic Opposition and Government Cohesion in Westminster Democracies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2011

TORUN DEWAN  and
ARTHUR SPIRLING
TORUN DEWAN*
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
ARTHUR SPIRLING*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
*
Torun Dewan is Professor of Political Science, Department of Government, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, UK WC2A 2AE (t.dewan@lse.uk).
Arthur Spirling is Assistant Professor, Department of Government, Harvard University, 1737 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 (aspirling@gov.harvard.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cohesive government-versus-opposition voting is a robust empirical regularity in Westminster democracies. Using new data from the modern Scottish Parliament, we show that this pattern cannot be explained by similarity of preferences within or between the government and opposition ranks. We look at differences in the way that parties operate in Westminster and Holyrood, and use roll call records to show that the observed behavior is unlikely to be determined by preferences on any underlying issue dimension. Using a simple variant of the agenda-setting model—in which members of parliament can commit to their voting strategies—we show that the procedural rules for reaching collective decisions in Westminster systems can explain this phenomenon: in the equilibrium, on some bills, members of the opposition vote against the government irrespective of the proposal. Such strategic opposition can reinforce government cohesiveness and have a moderating effect on policy outcomes. We introduce new data from the House of Lords, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly to distinguish our claims from competing accounts of the data.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 105 , Issue 2 , May 2011 , pp. 337 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Bernheim, B. D., Peleg, B., and Whinston, M. D.. 1987. “Coalition-proof Nash Equilibria I. Concepts.” Journal of Economic Theory 42 (1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. 2000. “Designing the Scottish Parliament.” Parliamentary Affairs 53: 542–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, G. 1982. “Party and Constituency in Victorian Britain.” Ph.D. diss. California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Cox, G. 1987. The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, G. 1992. “The Origin of Whip Votes in the House of Commons.” Parliamentary History 11 (2): 278–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, G., and McCubbins, M.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diermeier, D., and Feddersen, T.. 1998. “Cohesion in Legislatures and the Vote of Confidence Procedure.” American Political Science Review 92 (3): 611–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döring, H. 2001. “Parliamentary Agenda Control and Legislative Outcomes in Western Europe.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (1): 145–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Eguia, J. 2008. “A Spatial Theory of Party Formation.” SSRN Working Paper No. 1213158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, D., and Spirling, A.. 2005. tapiR: Tools for Accessing UK Parliamentary Information in R. R package version 0.7-2.Google Scholar
Hansard, X. 1974. “HC Debates.” Official Report 870 (cc:70–72).Google Scholar
Hicks, A., and Swank, D. 1992. “Politics, Institutions, and Welfare Spending in Industrialized Democracies, 1960–1992.” American Political Science Review 86: 658–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House of Commons Library. 2008. “Free Votes.” Parliamentary Information List, SN/PC/04793.Google Scholar
Huber, J. D. 1996. “The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies.” American Political Science Review 90 (2): 269–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, S. 2008. pscl: Classes and Methods for R Developed in the Political Science Computational Laboratory, Stanford University. R package version 1.02. Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. 2000. “Examining the Robustness of Ideological Voting: Evidence from the Confederate House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (4): 811–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jillson, C., and Wilson, R. K.. 1994. Congressional Dynamics: Structure, Coordination, and Choice in the First American Congress, 1774–1789. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kam, C., Bianco, W., Sened, I., and Smyth, R.. 2010. “Ministerial Selection and Intraparty Organization in the Contemporary British Parliament.” American Political Science Review 104 (2): 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, C. J. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, K. 1993. “Where's the Party?” British Journal of Political Science 23: 235–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laffin, M., and Thomas, A.. 2000. “Designing the National Assembly for Wales.” Parliamentary Affairs 53: 557–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
MacRae, D. 1970. Issues and Parties in Legislative Voting: Methods of Statistical Analysis. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
McAllister, L. 2000. “The New Politics in Wales: Rhetoric and Reality.” Parliamentary Affairs 53: 591–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, I., Russell, M., and Spirling, A.. 2003. “None of the Above: The UK House of Commons Votes on Reforming the House of Lords, February 2003.” Political Quarterly 74: 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikhaylov, S. 2007. “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Party Government: Mandate Theory and Public Spending.” Presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting, Chicago.Google Scholar
Mitchell, J. 2000. “New Parliament, New Politics in Scotland.” Parliamentary Affairs 53: 605–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namier, L., and Brooke, J.. 1964. The House of Commons: 1754–1790. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.Google Scholar
O'Leary, B., Grofman, B., and Elklit, J.. 2004. “Divisor Methods for Sequential Portfolio Allocation in Multi-party Executive Bodies: Evidence from Northern Ireland and Denmark.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 198–211.Google Scholar
Poole, K., Lewis, J., Lo, J., and Carroll, R.. 2010. OC Roll Call Analysis Software. http://voteview.com/oc.pdf (accessed March 21, 2011).Google Scholar
Poole, K. T. 2000. “Non-parametric Unfolding of Binary Choice Data.” Political Analysis 8: 21137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. B. 2006. “Election Laws and Representative Governments: Beyond Votes and Seats.” British Journal of Political Science 36: 291–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rhode, D. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Post-reform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, S. 1928. Quantitative Methods in Politics. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Romer, T., and Rosenthal, H.. 1978. “Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agendas, and the Status Quo.” Public Choice 33: 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, M., and Sciara, M.. 2007. “Why Does the Government Get Defeated in the House of Lords? The Lords, the Party System and British Politics.” British Politics 2: 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Scottish Parliament Public Information Service. 2009. “The Scottish Parliament Debating Chamber.” The Scottish Parliament Public Information Service, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. A. 1972. “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition,” American Political Science Review 66 (2): 555–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spirling, A., and McLean, I.. 2007. “UK OC OK? Interpreting Optimal Classification Scores for the United Kingdom House of Commons.” Political Analysis 15 (1): 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straffin, Philip D. J. 1997. “Homogeneity, Independence, and Power Indice.” Public Choice 30: 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, R. G. 1986. The House of Commons: 1790–1820. London: Secker and Warburg.Google Scholar
Wilford, R. 2000. “Designing the Northern Ireland Assembly.” Parliamentary Affairs 53: 577–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.