Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:34:15.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Career Ambitions and Legislative Participation: The Moderating Effect of Electoral Institutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2017

Bjørn Høyland ,
Sara B. Hobolt  and
Simon Hix
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What motivates politicians to engage in legislative activities? In multilevel systems politicians may be incentivized by ambitions to advance their careers either at the state or federal level. This article argues that the design of the electoral institutions influences how politicians respond to these incentives. Analyzing a unique dataset of both ‘stated’ and ‘realized’ career ambitions of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), it finds that those who seek to move from the European to the national (state) level participate less in legislative activities than those who plan to stay at the European (federal) level. For MEPs who aim to move to the state level, attendance and participation in legislative activities is substantively lower among legislators from candidate-centered systems. Importantly, the effect of career ambitions on legislative participation is stronger in candidate-centered systems than in party-centered systems. These findings suggest that the responsiveness associated with candidate-centered systems comes at the expense of legislative activity.

Keywords

ambitioncareerslegislative participationelectoral systemsEuropean Parliament
Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 491 - 512
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

*

Department of Political Science, University of Oslo (email: [email protected]); Department of Government and European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science (email: [email protected]); Department of Government, London School of Economics and Political Science (email: [email protected]). An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2013 EPSA meeting; at the 2015 Conference on Elections: Behaviors, Institutions and Reforms Conference at Toulouse School of Economics; and at seminars at the University of Oslo and Stanford University. We thank the audience, in particular Simon Hug, Christophe Crombez and Kenneth Scheve, as well as the reviewers and the editor for useful comments. Haakon Gjerlow, Lars Sutterud, Martin Søyland and Silje Hexeberg Tørnblad provided excellent research assistance. While carrying out this research, Bjørn Høyland has been associated with the European Strains project at the Centre for the study of Equality, Social Organization and Performance at the Department of Economics, University of Oslo. This project is funded by the Research Council of Norway through its Europe in Transition funding scheme, project number 227072/F10. Høyland would also like to thank the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for providing a seed grant for this project. Replication data is available at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123416000697.

References

Ames, Barry. 1995. Electoral Rules, Constituency Pressure and Pork Barrel: Bases of Voting in Brazilian Congress. Journal of Politics 57 (2):324–343.Google Scholar
Ariga, Kenichi. 2015. Incumbency Disadvantage Under Electoral Rules with Intraparty Competition: Evidence from Japan. Journal of Politics 77 (3):874–887.10.1086/681718Google Scholar
Ashworth, Scott, and de Mesquita, Ethan Bueno. 2006. Delivering the Goods: Legislative Particularism in Different Electoral and Institutional Settings. Journal of Politics 68 (1):168–179.10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00378.xGoogle Scholar
Black, Gordon S. 1972. A Theory of Political Ambition: Career Choices and the Role of Structural Incentives. American Political Science Review 66 (1):144–159.10.2307/1959283Google Scholar
Borchert, Jens. 2011. Individual Ambition and Institutional Opportunity: A Conceptional Approach to Political Careers in Multi-Level Systems. Regional and Federal Studies 21 (2):117–140.10.1080/13597566.2011.529757Google Scholar
Carey, John. 1996. Term Limits and Legislative Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625619Google Scholar
Carey, John, and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1995. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies 14 (4):417–439.10.1016/0261-3794(94)00035-2Google Scholar
Carrubba, Clifford J., Gabel, Matthew, Murrah, Lacey, and Clough, Ryan. 2005. Off the Record: Unrecorded Legislative Votes, Selection Bias and Roll-Call Analysis. British Journal of Political Science 36 (4):691–704.10.1017/S0007123406000366Google Scholar
Chang, Eric, and Golden, Miriam A.. 2006. Electoral Systems, District Magnitude and Corruption. British Journal of Political Science 37 (1):115–137.10.1017/S0007123407000063Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., Rosenbluth, Frances M., and Thies, Michael F.. 2000. Electoral Rules, Career Ambitions, and Party Structure: Comparing Factions in Japan’s Upper and Lower Houses. American Journal of Political Science 44 (1):115–122.10.2307/2669297Google Scholar
Cunow, Saul et al. 2012. Reelection and Legislative Power: Surprising Results from Brazil. Legislative Studies Quarterly 37 (4):533–558.10.1111/j.1939-9162.2012.00061.xGoogle Scholar
Daniel, William T. 2015. Career Behaviour and the European Parliament: All Roads Through Brussels. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716402.001.0001Google Scholar
Desposato, Scott W. 2006. Parties for Rent? Ambition, Ideology, and Party Switching in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies. American Journal of Political Science 50 (1):62–80.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00170.xGoogle Scholar
Farrell, David M., and McAllister, Ian. 2006. Voter Satisfaction and Electoral Systems: Does Preferential Voting in Candidate-Centred Systems Make a Difference. European Journal of Political Research 45 (5):723–749.10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00633.xGoogle Scholar
Farrell, David M., and Scully, Roger M.. 2005. Electing the European Parliament: How Uniform are ‘Uniform’ Electoral Systems? Journal of Common Market Studies 43 (5):969–984.10.1111/j.1468-5965.2005.00604.xGoogle Scholar
Farrell, David M., and Scully, Roger M.. 2007. Representing Europe’s Citizens? Electoral Institutions and the Failure of Parliamentary Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199285020.001.0001Google Scholar
Farrell, David M., Hix, Simon, and Scully, Roger M.. 2011. EPRG MEP Survey Dataset: 2011 Release. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Federico, Herron, Erik S., and Nishikawa, Misa. 2005. Mixed Electoral Systems: Contamination and Its Consequences. New York: Palgrave.10.1057/9781403978851Google Scholar
Francis, Wayne L., and Kenny, Lawrence W.. 2000. Up the Political Ladder: Career Paths in US Politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Galasso, Vincenzo, and Nannicini, Thommaso. 2011. Competing on Good Politicians. American Political Science Review 105 (1):79–99.10.1017/S0003055410000535Google Scholar
Haspel, Moshe, Remington, Thomas F., and Smith, Steven S.. 1998. Electoral Institutions and Party Cohesion in the Russian Duma. Journal of Politics 60 (2):417–439.10.2307/2647916Google Scholar
Hazan, Reuven Y., and Rahat, Gideon. 2010. Democracy Within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572540.001.0001Google Scholar
Hibbing, John. 1986. Ambition in the House: The Behavioral Consequences of Higher Office Goals Among US Representatives. American Journal of Political Science 30 (3):651–665.10.2307/2111094Google Scholar
Hix, Simon. 2004. Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: Explaining Voting-Defection in the European Parliament. World Politics 56 (1):194–223.10.1353/wp.2004.0012Google Scholar
Hix, Simon, Noury, Abdul G., and Roland, Gerárd. 2007. Democratic Politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511491955Google Scholar
Hix, Simon, and Hagemann, Sara. 2009. Could Changing the Electoral Rules Fix European Parliament Elections. Politique Européenne 28 (1):27–41.10.3917/poeu.028.0037Google Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., and Høyland, Bjørn. 2011. Selection and Sanctioning in the European Parliamentary Elections. British Journal of Political Science 41 (3):477–498.10.1017/S0007123411000081Google Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., and Spoon, Jae-Jae. 2012. Motivating the European Voter: Parties, Issues and Campaigns in European Parliament Elections. European Journal of Political Research 51 (6):701–727.10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02057.xGoogle Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2010. Selection Effects in Roll Call Votes. British Journal of Political Science 40 (1):225–235.10.1017/S0007123409990160Google Scholar
Jones, Mark P., Saiegh, Sebastian, Spiller, Pablo T., and Tommasi, Mariano. 2002. Amateur Legislator-Professional Politicians: The Consequences of Party-Centered Electoral Rules in Federal Systems. American Journal of Political Science 46 (3):656–669.10.2307/3088406Google Scholar
Jun, Hae-Won, and Hix, Simon. 2010. Electoral Systems, Political Career Paths and Legislative Behavior: Evidence from South Korea’s Mixed-Member System. Japanese Journal of Political Science 11 (2):153–171.10.1017/S1468109910000058Google Scholar
Kiewiet, Roderick, and Zeng, Langche. 1993. An Analysis of Congressional Career Decisions, 1947–1986. American Political Science Review 87 (4):928–941.10.2307/2938824Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Meserve, Stephen A., Pemstein, Daniel, and Bernhard, William T.. 2009. Political Ambition and Legislative Behavior in the European Parliament. Journal of Politics 71 (3):1015–1032.10.1017/S0022381609090859Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, ed. 1997. Passage to Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Obholzer, Lucas, and Daniel, William T.. 2016. An Online Electoral Connection? How Electoral Systems Condition Representatives’ Social Media Use. European Union Politics 17 (3):387–407.10.1177/1465116516630149Google Scholar
Pekkanen, Robert, Nyblade, Benjamin, and Krauss, Ellis S.. 2006. Electoral Incentives in Mixed-Member Systems: Party, Posts, and Zombie Politicians in Japan. American Political Science Review 100 (2):183–193.Google Scholar
Pemstein, Daniel, Meserve, Stephen A., and Bernhard, William T.. 2015. Brussels Bound: Policy Experience and Candidate Selection in European Elections. Comparative Political Studies 48 (11):1421–1453.Google Scholar
Plummer, Martyn. 2015. JAGS Version 40.0.Google Scholar
Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Slapin, Jonathan B.. 2015. The Politics of Parliamentary Debate: Parties, Rebels and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1979. Risk-Bearing and Progressive Ambition: The Case of Members of the United States House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science 23 (1):1–26.Google Scholar
Samuels, David. 2000. Progressive Ambition, Federalism, and Pork-Barreling in Brazil. In Legislative Politics in Latin America, edited by Scott Morgenstern and Benito Nacif, 315–340. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, David. 2003. Ambition, Federalism, and Legislative Politics in Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scarrow, Susan E. 1997. Political Career Paths and the European Parliament. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (2):253–263.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Joseph A. 1966. Ambitions and Politics: Political Careers in the United States. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Hermann. 2005. The European Parliament Elections of June 2004: Still Second Order? West European Politics 28 (3):650–679.Google Scholar
Scully, Roger M., Hix, Simon, and Farrell, David M.. 2012. National or European Parliamentarians? Evidence from a New Survey of the Members of the European Parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies 50 (4):670–683.Google Scholar
Slapin, Jonathan B., and Proksch, Sven-Oliver. 2014. Words as Data: Content Analysis in Legislative Studies. In Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies, edited by Shane Martin, Thomas Saalfeld and Kaare W. Strøm, 126–144. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stolz, Klaus. 2003. Moving Up, Moving Down: Political Careers Across Territorial Levels. European Journal of Political Research 42 (2):223–248.Google Scholar
Stolz, Klaus. 2011. The Regionalization of Political Careers in Spain and the UK. Regional and Federal Studies 21 (2):223–243.Google Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas, and Baur, Martin. 2002. Plurality Rule, Proportional Representation, and the German Bundestag: How Incentive to Pork-Barrel Differ Across Electoral Systems. American Journal of Political Science 46 (3):506–514.10.2307/3088395Google Scholar
Strøm, Kaare W., and Müller, Wolgang C.. 1999. Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yordanova, Nikoleta, and Mühlböck, Monika. 2015. Tracing the Selection Bias in Roll Call Votes: Party Group Cohesion in the European Parliament. European Political Science Review 7 (3):373–399.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Høyland supplementary material

Appendix

Download Høyland supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 97 KB