Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:27:02.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electoral Markets, Party Strategies, and Proportional Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2010

CARLES BOIX
CARLES BOIX*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
*
Carles Boix is Professor of Politics and Public Affairs, Princeton University, 433 Robertson Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following Kreuzer's (2010) methodological pleas, I first reflect, at the conceptual level, on the ways in which historical research and political science should be related to each other. I then apply some of those considerations to examine two key “moments” in the theory (and history) of institutional choice that I first presented in Boix (1999): the underlying conditions that shaped the interests of different parties toward proportional representation, and the process through which those interests were translated into actual legislative decisions.

Type
Forum
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 104 , Issue 2 , May 2010 , pp. 404 - 413
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

Aardal, Bernt. 2002. “Electoral Systems in Norway.” In The Evolution of Electoral and Party Systems in the Nordic Countries, eds. Grofman, Bernard and Lijphart, Arend. New York: Agathon Press, 167–224.Google Scholar
Bartolini, Stefano. 2000. The Political Mobilization of the European Left, 1860–1980. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Robert H., Avner Greif, Margaret Levi, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal and Barry Weingast. 2000. “The Analytical Narrative Project.” American Political Science Review 94 (September): 696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blewett, Neal. 1972. The Peers, the Parties and the People: The British General Elections of 1910. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix, Carles. 1999. “Setting the Rules of the Game. The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies,” American Political Science Review 93 (September): 609–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix, Carles. 2003. Democracy and Redistribution. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix, Carles. 2004. “The Origins of Party Alignments: Electoral Mobilization in Belgium, Britain and Sweden from 1880 to 1940.” Princeton University: Unpublished typescript.Google Scholar
Boix, Carles. 2007. “Emergence of Parties and Party Systems.” In Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, eds. Boix, Carles and Stokes, Susan. New York: Oxford University Press, 499–521.Google Scholar
Buell, Raymond L. 1920. Contemporary French Politics. New York: D. Appleton & Co.Google Scholar
Butler, D. E. 1963. The Electoral System in Britain since 1918. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto. 2009. “The Competitive Road to Proportional Representation: Partisan Biases and Electoral Regime Change under Increasing Party Competition.” World Politics 61 (April): 254–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, P. 1958. French Electoral Systems and Elections 1789–1957. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew McLaren. 1980. A Short History of Electoral Systems in Western Europe. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Cook, Chris. 1975. The Age of Alignment: Electoral Politics in Britain, 1922–1929. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cusack, Thomas, Iversen, Torben, and Soskice, David. 2007. “Economic Interests and the Origins of Electoral Systems.” American Political Science Review 101 (3): 373–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daalder, Hans. 1990. “Consociationalism, Centre and Periphery in the Netherlands.” In Politiek en Historie, ed. Daalder, Hans, Amsterdam: Vitgeverij Bert Bakker, 21–63.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. and Tufte, Edward R.. 1973. Size and Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Elklit, Jorgen. 2002. “The Politics of Electoral System Development and Change: The Danish Case.” In The Evolution of Electoral and Party Systems in the Nordic Countries, eds. Grofman, Bernard and Lijphart, Arend. New York: Agathon Press, 15–66.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 2000. “Review: Rational Choice History: A Case of Excessive Ambition.” American Political Science Review 94 (September): 685–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D., and Laitin, David D.. 2009. “Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Science, ed. Goodin, Robert E.. New York: Oxford University Press, 1166–86.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2007. “The Case Study: What It Is and What It Does.” In Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, eds. Boix, Carles and Stokes, Susan. New York: Oxford University Press, 90–122.Google Scholar
Goblet d'Alviella, Eugène. 1900. La représentation proportionnelle en Belgique: histoire d'une réforme. Bruxelles, P. Weissenbruch.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter, and Taylor, Rosemary. 1996. “Political science and the three institutionalisms.” Political Studies 44: 936–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardarson, Ólafur Th. 2002. “The Icelandic Electoral System 1844–1999.” In The Evolution of Electoral and Party Systems in the Nordic Countries, eds. Grofman, Bernard and Lijphart, Arend. New York: Agathon Press, 101–66.Google Scholar
Hermens, Ferdinand A. 1941. Democracy or Anarchy? A Study of Proportional Representation. Notre Dame, In: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Kreuzer, Markus. 2010. “Historical Knowledge and Quantitative Analysis: The Case of the Origins of Proportional Representation.” American Political Science Review 104 (May): 369–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Nauze, John A. 1965. Alfred Deakin: A Biography. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewin, Leif. 1988. Ideology and Strategy: A Century of Swedish Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewin, Leif, Jansson, Bo and Sörbom, Dag. 1972. The Swedish Electorate 1887–1968. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Loveday, P., Martin, A. W. and Parker, R. S., eds. 1977. The Emergence of the Australian Party System. Sydney: Hale & Iremonger.Google Scholar
Luebbert, Gregory M. 1991. Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy: Social Classes and the Political Origins of Regimes in Interwar Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, Georg. 2004. “Switzerland: Introducing Proportional Representation from Above.” In Handbook of Electoral System Choice, ed. Colomer, Josep M.. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 265–78.Google Scholar
Martin, Cathie Jo, and Swank, Duane. 2008. “The Political Origins of Coordinated Capitalism: Business Organization, Party Systems, and the State in the Age of Innocence.” American Political Science Review 102 (May): 181–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, R. S. 1966. Political Parties in New Zealand. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Barrington. 1966. Social Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Morris, H. L. 1921. Parliamentary Franchise Reform in England and Wales from 1885 to 1918. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Overacker, Louise. 1952. AustralianParty System. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Penadés, Alberto. 2008. “Choosing Rules for Government: The Institutional Preferences of Early Socialist Parties.” In Controlling Governments: Voters, Institutions, and Accountability, eds. Maravall, José María and Sánchez-Cuenca, Ignacio. New York: Cambridge University Press, 202–46.Google Scholar
Pugh, Martin. 1978. Electoral Reform in War and Peace, 1906–1918. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ramseyer, Mark J., and Rosenbluth, Frances M.. 1995. The Politics of Oligarchy: Institutional Choice in Imperial Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodden, Jonathan. 2009a. “Back to the Future: Endogenous Institutions and Comparative Politics.” In Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. 2nd ed. eds Lichbach, Mark and Zuckerman, Alan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 333–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodden, Jonathan. 2009b. “Why Did Western Europe Adopt Proportional Representation? A Political Geography Explanation?” Stanford University: Unpublished typescript.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald. 1987. “Trade and the Variety of Democratic Institutions.” International Organization 41 (Spring): 203–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rokkan, Stein. 1970. Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Process of Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Rustow, Dankwart A. 1950. “Some Observations on Proportional Representation.”Journal of Politics 12 (February): 107–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S. 1999. “Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict”. American Political Science Review 93 (2): 279–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, David F. 1939. Austria (October 1918– March 1919). Transition from Empire to Republic. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, Graham H. 1920. “Electoral Reform in France and the Elections of 1919.” American Political Science Review 14 (February): 117–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verney, D. V. 1957. Parliamentary Reform in Sweden, 1866–1921 Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Woeste, Charles. 1933. Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire contemporaine de la Belgique. Brussels: édition Universelle.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.