Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:41:46.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A New Approach to the Study of Parties Entering Government

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2014

Abstract

Previous studies of the factors that influence the ability of parties to join governments have estimated binary choice models using the parties as the unit of analysis, which inappropriately treats each party in a government formation opportunity as an independent observation (a problem that clustered standard errors do not solve) and does not allow researchers to control for important coalition-level effects. This article demonstrates that a preferred methodological approach is to first estimate a standard multinomial choice model (conditional logit or mixed logit) of coalition formation, using government formation opportunities as the unit of analysis and potential governments as the choice alternatives. The probabilities of parties joining governments can then be recovered by simply summing the probabilities for the potential governments that contain each party. An empirical example shows how the substantive conclusions about a party's likelihood of entering office can change depending on the methodological approach taken.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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 California, Santa Barbara (email: [email protected]); Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University (email: [email protected]). We gratefully acknowledge support for this project from the Research Center (SFB) 884 ‘Political Economy of Reforms’, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). We thank also Matt Golder and the audience at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the European Political Science Association for helpful comments on this article. The data, codebook and all computer code necessary to replicate the results and figures in this analysis will be made publicly available on the authors’ homepages upon publication. Data replication sets are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000015.

References

REFERENCES

Alemán, Eduardo Tsebelis, George. 2011. Political Parties and Government Coalitions in the Americas. Journal of Politics in Latin America 3:328.Google Scholar
Andeweg, Rudy B. Irwin, Galen A.. 2009. Governance and Politics of the Netherlands (3rd Edition). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bäck, Hanna. 2003. Explaining Coalitions: Evidence and Lessons From Studying Coalition Formation in Swedish Local Government. PhD thesis. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Bäck, Hanna. 2008. Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Formation: Evidence from Swedish Local Government. Party Politics 14:7189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, Ian, Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith Tanenbaum, Eric. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. Roberts, Andrew. 2007. Communist Successor Parties and Coalition Formation in Eastern Europe. Legislative Studies Quarterly 32:531.Google Scholar
Franklin, Mark N. Mackie, Thomas T.. 1983. Familiarity and Inertia in the Formation of Governing Coalitions in Parliamentary Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 13:275298.Google Scholar
Glasgow, Garrett, Golder, Matt Golder, Sona N.. 2011. Who ‘Wins’? Determining the Party of the Prime Minister. American Journal of Political Science 55:937954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasgow, Garrett, Golder, Matt Golder, Sona N.. 2012. New Empirical Strategies for the Study of Parliamentary Government Formation. Political Analysis 20:248270.Google Scholar
Hardarson, Ólafur Th. 1992. Iceland. European Journal of Political Research 22:429435.Google Scholar
Hardarson, Ólafur Th. 1996. Iceland. European Journal of Political Research 30:367376.Google Scholar
Isaksson, Guy-Erik. 2005. From Election to Government: Principal Rules and Deviant Cases. Government and Opposition 40:329357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44:341355.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael Shepsle, Kenneth A.. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W. Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2001. Government Formation in Parliamentary Democracies. American Journal of Political Science 45:3350.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W. Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2010. Incumbency, Context, and Government Formation in Multiparty Parliamentary Democracies. American Political Science Review 104:503518.Google Scholar
Mattila, Mikko Raunio, Tapio. 2004. Does Winning Pay? Electoral Success and Government Formation in 15 West European Countries. European Journal of Political Research 43:263285.Google Scholar
McFadden, Daniel Train, Kenneth. 2000. Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response. Applied Econometrics 15:447470.Google Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang C. Strøm, Kaare, eds. 2000. Coalition Governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saalfeld, Thomas. 2008. Institutions, Chance and Choices: The Dynamics of Cabinet Survival in the Parliamentary Democracies of Western Europe (1945–99). In Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe, edited by Kaare Strøm, Wolfgang C. Müller and Torbjörn Bergman, 327368. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, Lee Michael. Forthcoming. Who Gets In? Ideology and Government Membership in Central and Eastern Europe. Party Politics, doi:10.1177/1354068811436064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleiter, Petra Morgan-Jones, Edward. 2009. Constitutional Power and Competing Risks. American Political Science Review 103:496512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2012. Voters’ Perceptual Ambiguity and its Electoral Consequences. Annual Meeting of the Elections, Public Opinion and Parties Conference, 7–9 September, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2008. The Role of Parties’ Past Behavior in Government Formation. American Political Science Review 102:495507.Google Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2013. Post-Communist Democracies and Party Organization. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Train, Kenneth E. 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Second Edition). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Warwick, Paul V. 1996. Coalition Government Membership in West European Parliamentary Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 26:471499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Glasgow and Golder Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 1

Download Glasgow and Golder Supplementary Material(File)
File 5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Glasgow and Golder Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 2

Download Glasgow and Golder Supplementary Material(File)
File 3.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Glasgow and Golder Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 3

Download Glasgow and Golder Supplementary Material(File)
File 7.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Glasgow and Golder Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 4

Download Glasgow and Golder Supplementary Material(File)
File 151.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Glasgow and Golder Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 5

Download Glasgow and Golder Supplementary Material(File)
File 2.2 KB