Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:32:47.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Conditional Impact of Incumbency on Government Formation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2010

LANNY W. MARTIN  and
RANDOLPH T. STEVENSON
LANNY W. MARTIN*
Affiliation:
Rice University
RANDOLPH T. STEVENSON*
Affiliation:
Rice University
*
Lanny W. Martin is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Rice University, P.O. Box 1892, MS 24, Houston TX 77251 ([email protected]).
Randolph T. Stevenson is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Rice University, P.O. Box 1892, MS 24, Houston TX 77251 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous research on coalition politics has found an “incumbency advantage” in government formation, but it has provided no clear explanation as to why this advantage exists. We classify existing theories as either preference-based or institutions-based explanations for why incumbent coalitions might be likely to form again, and we integrate these explanations into a coherent theoretical argument. We also claim that it is possible, to some extent, to distinguish these explanations empirically by taking into account the “historical context” of coalition bargaining. Using a comprehensive new data set on coalition bargaining in Europe, we show that coalitions, in general, are more likely to form if the parties comprising them have worked together in the recent past, and that incumbent coalitions are more likely to re-form if partners have not experienced a severe public conflict while in office together or suffered a recent setback at the polls. The incumbency advantage disappears completely if partners have become mired in conflict or have lost legislative seats (even after accounting for the impact of seat share on coalition size). Moreover, in certain circumstances, institutional rules that grant incumbents an advantage in coalition bargaining greatly enhance their ability to remain in office.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 104 , Issue 3 , August 2010 , pp. 503 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

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

Andrews, Josephine T., and Jackman, Robert W.. 2008. “If Winning Isn't Everything, Why Do They Keep Score? Consequences of Electoral Performance for Party Leaders.” British Journal of Political Science 38 (4): 657–75.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey. 1988. “Elections, Coalitions, and Legislative Outcomes.” American Political Science Review 82 (2): 405–22.Google Scholar
Bäck, Hanna. 2003. Explaining Coalitions: Evidence and Lessons from Studying Coalition Formation in Swedish Local Government. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
Bäck, Hanna, and Dumont, Patrick. 2007. “Combining Large-n and Small-n Strategies: The Way Forward in Coalition Research.” West European Politics 30 (3): 467–501.Google Scholar
Bäck, Hanna, and Dumont, Patrick. 2008. “Making the First Move: A Two-stage Analysis of the Role of Formateurs in Parliamentary Government Formation.” Public Choice 135 (3–4): 353–73.Google Scholar
Baron, David P. 1991. “A Spatial Bargaining Theory of Government Formation in Parliamentary Systems.” American Political Science Review 85 (1): 137–64.Google Scholar
Baron, David P. 1993. “Government Formation and Endogenous Parties.” American Political Science Review 87 (1): 34–47.Google Scholar
Baron, David P., and Ferejohn, John A.. 1989. “Bargaining in Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 83 (4): 1181–206.Google Scholar
Bogdanor, Vernon, ed. 1983. Coalition Government in Western Europe. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Browne, Eric C., and Franklin, Mark N.. 1973. “Aspects of Coalition Payoffs in European Parliamentary Democracies.” American Political Science Review 67 (2): 453–69.Google Scholar
Browne, Eric C., and Frendreis, John P.. 1980. “Allocating Coalition Payoffs by Conventional Norm: An Assessment of the Evidence from Cabinet Coalition Situations.” American Journal of Political Science 24 (4): 753–68.Google Scholar
Browne, Eric C., and Rice, Peter. 1979. “A Bargaining Theory of Coalition Formation.” British Journal of Political Science 9 (1): 66–88.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel, and van Roozendaal, Peter. 1998. “The Duration of Cabinet Formation Processes in Western Multi-Party Democracies.” British Journal of Political Science 28: 609–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Martin, Lanny W., and Thies, Michael F.. 2005. “Influence without Confidence: Upper Chambers and Government Formation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 30 (4): 529–48.Google Scholar
Franklin, Mark N., and Mackie, Thomas T.. 1983. “Familiarity and Inertia in the Formation of Governing Coalitions in Parliamentary Democracies.” British Journal of Political Science 13 (3): 275–98.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Michael, Laver, Michael, and Mair, Peter. 2005. Representative Government in Modern Europe: Institutions, Parties, and Governments. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Golder, Sona N. 2010. “Bargaining Delays in the Government Formation Process.” Comparative Political Studies 43 (1): 3–32.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Munger, Michael C.. 1997. Analytical Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Indridason, Indridi H. 2008. “Does Terrorism Influence Domestic Politics? Coalition Formation and Terrorist Incidents.” Journal of Peace Research 45 (2): 241–59.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Schofield, Norman. 1990. Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, Kenneth. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luebbert, Gregory. 1986. Comparative Democracy: Policy Making and Governing Coalitions in Europe and Israel. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2001. “Government Formation in Parliamentary Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 33–50.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: 323–32.Google Scholar
Morelli, Massimo. 1999. “Demand Competition and Policy Compromise in Legislative Bargaining.” American Political Science Review 93 (4): 809–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang C., and Strøm, Kaare. 1999. Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang C., and Strøm, Kaare, eds. 2000. Coalition Governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plott, Charles. 1991. “Will Economics Become and Experimental Science?” Southern Economic Journal 57: 901–20.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Views. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William. 1962. The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Saalfeld, Thomas. 2008. “Institutions, Chances, and Choices.” In Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe, eds. Strøm, Kaare, Müller, Wolfgang C., and Bergman, Torbjörn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 327–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skjaeveland, Asbjørn, Serritzlew, Søren, and Blom-Hansen, Jens. 2007. “‘Theories of Coalition Formation: An Empirical Test Using Data from Danish Local Government’.” European Journal of Political Research 46 (5): 721–45.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Randolph T. 1997. “How Parties Compete: Electoral Performance and Government Participation in Parliamentary Democracies.” Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Strøm, Kaare, Budge, Ian, and Laver, Michael. 1994. “Constraints on Government Formation in Parliamentary Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (2): 303–35.Google Scholar
Strøm, Kaare, Müller, Wolfgang, and Bergman, Torbjörn, eds. 2008. Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2008. “The Role of Parties' Past Behavior in Coalition Formation.” American Political Science Review 102 (4): 495–507.Google Scholar
von Neumann, I., and Morgenstern, O.. 1953. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Warwick, Paul V. 1996. “Coalition Government Membership in West European Parliamentary Democracies.” British Journal of Political Science 26 (4): 471–99.Google Scholar
Warwick, Paul V. 2005. “When Far Apart Becomes Too Far Apart: Evidence for a Threshold Effect in Coalition Formation.” British Journal of Political Science 35 (3): 383–401.Google Scholar
Warwick, Paul V. 2006. Policy Horizons and Parliamentary Government. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, Paul V., and Druckman, James N.. 2001. “Portfolio Salience and the Proportionality of Payoffs in Coalition Governments.” British Journal of Political Science 31 (4): 627–49.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.