Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T09:16:06.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection and Sanctioning in European Parliamentary Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2011

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

Abstract

Elections are inherently about selecting good candidates for public office and sanctioning incumbents for past performance. Yet, in the low salience context of ‘second-order elections’ to the European Parliament, empirical evidence suggests that voters sanction first-order national incumbents. However, no previous study has examined whether voters also use these elections to select good candidates. This article draws on a unique dataset on the political experience of party representatives in eighty-five national elections to the European Parliament to evaluate the extent to which voters prefer candidates with more political experience. The results show that selection considerations do matter. Parties that choose experienced top candidates are rewarded by voters. This effect is greatest when European elections are held in the middle of the national electoral cycle.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 477 - 498
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

1 Besley, Timothy, ‘Political Selection’, Journal of Economic Perspectives in Politics, 19, no. 3 (2005), 43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Kramer, Gerald H., ‘Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896–1964’, American Political Science Review, 65 (1971), 131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fearon, James D., ‘Electoral Accountability and Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance’, in Adam Przeworski, Susan C. Stokes and Bernard Manin, eds, Democracy, Accountability, and Representation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 55–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Duch, Raymond M. and Stevenson, Randolph, The Economic Vote: How Political And Economic Institutions Condition Election Results (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 E.g., Jacobson, Gary C. and Kernell, Samuel, Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Squire, Peverill, ‘Candidates, Money, and Voters: Assessing the State of Congressional Election Research’, Politics Research Quarterly, 48 (1995), 891–917Google Scholar; Carson, Jamie, Jenkins, Jeffery A., Rohde, David W. and Souva, Mark A., ‘The Impact of National Tides and District-Level Effects on Electoral Outcomes: The U.S. Congressional Elections of 1962–63’, American Journal of Political Science, 45 (2001), 887–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Reif, Karlheinz and Schmitt, Hermann, ‘Nine Second-Order National Elections – A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results’, European Journal of Political Research, 8 (1980), 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van der Eijk, Cees and Franklin, Mark, Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of the Union (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Marsh, Michael, ‘Testing the Second-Order Election Model after Four European Elections’, British Journal of Political Science, 28 (1998), 591–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hix, Simon and Marsh, Michael, ‘Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections’, Journal of Politics, 69 (2007), 495–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van der Brug, Wouter and van der Eijk, Cees, European Elections and Domestic Politics: Lessons from the Past and Scenarios for the Future (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

5 Banks, Jeffrey and Sundaram, Rangarajan K., ‘Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard in a Repeated Elections Model’, in W. A. Barnett, Melvin J. Hinich and Norman Schofield, eds, Political Economy: Institutions, Competition, and Representation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

6 Key, V. O., The Responsible Electorate (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fiorina, Morris P., Retrospective Voting in American National Elections (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Manin, Bernard, The Principles of Representative Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bingham Powell, G., Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

7 Besley, ‘Political Selection’; Fearon, ‘Electoral Accountability and Control of Politicians’; Herreros, Francisco, ‘Screening before Sanctioning: Elections and the Republican Tradition’, European Journal of Political Theory, 5 (2006), 415–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Duch and Stevenson, The Economic Vote.

8 Mansbridge, Jane, ‘Rethinking Representation’, American Political Science Review, 97 (2003), 515–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 521.

9 Ferejohn, John, ‘The Spatial Model and Elections’, in B. Grofman, ed., Information, Participation and Choice. An Economic Theory of Democracy in Perspective (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

10 Fearon, ‘Electoral Accountability and Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance’.

11 Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Bonchek, Mark S., Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behavior and Institutions (London: W. W. Norton, 1997), p. 361Google Scholar.

12 Squire, ‘Candidates, Money, and Voters’.

13 An exception to this is Duch and Stevenson, The Economic Vote. This cross-national study of economic voting presents a selection rather than a sanctioning model to explain the economic vote.

14 Key, The Responsible Electorate; Fiorina, Retrospective Voting in American National Elections; Ferejohn, John, ‘Incumbent Performance and Electoral Control’, Public Choice, 50 (1986), 5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lewis-Beck, Michael, Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

15 Besley, Timothy and Coate, Stephen, ‘An Economic Model of Representative Democracy’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (1997), 85–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Besley, ‘Political Selection’; Caselli, Francesco and Morelli, Massimo, ‘Bad Politicians’, Journal of Public Economics, 88 (2004), 759–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Besley, Timothy, Pande, Rohini and Rao, Vijayendra, ‘Selection and the Quality of Government: Evidence from South India’ (Yale University Economic Growth Center, Discussion Paper 21, 2005), p. 2Google Scholar.

17 See Jacobson and Kernell, Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections; Ian Lublin, David, ‘Quality, Not Quantity: Strategic Politicians in U.S. Senate Elections, 1952–1990’, Journal of Politics, 56 (1994), 228–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Squire, ‘Candidates, Money, and Voters’; Carson et al., ‘The Impact of National Tides and District-Level Effects on Electoral Outcomes’; Stone, Walter, Mausel, Sandy and Maestas, Cherie D., ‘Counts: Extending the Strategic Politician Model of Incumbent Deterrence’, American Journal of Political Science, 48 (2004), 478–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brown, Adam M., ‘Strategic Politicians in Gubernational Elections’ (doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 2008)Google Scholar.

18 Squire, ‘Candidates, Money, and Voters’, p. 893.

19 E.g., Jacobson and Kernell, Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections; Lublin, ‘Quality, Not Quantity’.

20 E.g., Krasno, Jonathan S. and Green, Donald P., ‘Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections’, Journal of Politics 50 (1988), 920–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brown, ‘Strategic Politicians in Gubernational Elections’.

21 E.g., Stone, Mausel and Maestas, ‘Counts: Extending the Strategic Politician Model of Incumbent Deterrence’.

22 Squire, ‘Candidates, Money, and Voters’.

23 Van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe?; de Vreese, Claes H., Banducci, Susan and Semetko, Holli A., ‘The News Coverage of the 2004 European Parliamentary Election Campaign in 25 Countries’, European Union Politics 7 (2006), 477–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Marsh, ‘Testing the Second-Order Election Model after Four European Elections’; Reif, Karlheinz, ‘National Election Cycles and European Elections, 1979 and 1984’, Electoral Studies, 3 (1984), 244–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reif and Schmitt, ‘Nine Second-Order National Elections’; Van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe?; Carrubba, Cliff and Timpone, Richard J., ‘Explaining Vote Switching Across First- and Second-Order Elections: Evidence From Europe’, Comparative Political Studies, 38 (2005), 260–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Van der Brug and van der Eijk, European Elections and Domestic Politics; Hix and Marsh, ‘Punishment or Protest?’

25 Campbell, Angus, ‘Surge and Decline: A Study of Electoral Change’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 24 (1960), 397–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Marsh, ‘Testing the Second-Order Election Model after Four European Elections’; Reif, ‘National Election Cycles and European Elections, 1979 and 1984’.

27 Fiorina, Retrospective Voting in American National Elections; Kousser, Thaddeus, ‘Retrospective Voting and Strategic Behaviour in European Parliament Elections’, Electoral Studies, 23 (2004), 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tufte, Edward, ‘Determinants of the Outcomes of Midterm Congressional Elections’, American Political Science Review, 69 (1975), 812–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Føllesdal, Andreas and Hix, Simon, ‘Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 44 (2006), 533–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 De Vreese, Banducci and Semetko, ‘The News Coverage of the 2004 European Parliamentary Election Campaign in 25 Countries’; Van der Brug and van der Eijk, European Elections and Domestic Politics.

30 Reif, ‘National Election Cycles and European Elections, 1979 and 1984’; Van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe?; Hix and Marsh, ‘Punishment or Protest?’; Ferrara, Federico and Timo Weishaupt, J., ‘Get Your Act Together: Party Performance in European Parliament Elections’, European Union Politics, 5 (2004), 283–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marsh, ‘Testing the Second-Order Election Model after Four European Elections’; Kousser, ‘Retrospective Voting and Strategic Behaviour in European Parliament Elections’.

31 Scarrow, Susan E., ‘Political Career Paths and the European Parliament’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22 (1997), 253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Norris, Pippa and Franklin, Mark, ‘Social Representation’, European Journal of Political Research, 32 (1997), 153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Scarrow, ‘Political Career Paths and the European Parliament’.

34 Reif and Schmitt, ‘Nine Second-Order National Elections’; Van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe?; Marsh, ‘Testing the Second-Order Election Model after Four European Elections’; Hix and Marsh, ‘Punishment or Protest?’; Van der Brug and van der Eijk, European Elections and Domestic Politics; Hobolt, Sara B., Spoon, Jae-Jae and Tilley, James, ‘A Vote Against Europe? Explaining Defection at the 1999 and 2004 European Elections’, British Journal of Political Science, 39 (2009), 93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Farrell, David M. and Scully, Roger M., Representing Europe's Citizens? Electoral Institutions and the Failure of Parliamentary Representation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 There may still be a bias in our analyses due to the fact that we only have data on successful candidates. The magnitude of this bias is, however, unlikely to be very large when using this operationalization of experience, since the most experienced candidate of a party will almost always be among the successful candidates. Moreover, as a robustness check, Model 3 in Appendix Table A1 shows a re-estimation of our main results with mean rather than maximum level of experience as the key explanatory variable.

37 See Lupia, Arthur and McCubbins, Mathew D., The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

38 Fearon, ‘Electoral Accountability and Control of Politicians’.

39 Morgan, R., Times Guide to the European Parliament 1994 (London: Times Books, 1994)Google Scholar; Wood, A., Times Guide to the European Parliament 1979 (London: Times Books, 1979)Google Scholar; Wood, A., Times Guide to the European Parliament 1984 (London: Times Books, 1984)Google Scholar; Wood, A., Times Guide to the European Parliament 1989 (London: Times Books, 1989)Google Scholar.

40 E.g., Mansbridge, ‘Rethinking Representation’.

41 Squire, , ‘Candidates, Money, and Voters’, pp. 893–4Google Scholar.

42 Owing to the continuing expansion of the EU, nine countries participated in the 1979 EP elections, ten in 1984, twelve in 1989 and 1994; fifteen in 1999 and twenty-five in 2004.

43 The curious reader might like to know that there is no significant relationship between the difference in the turnout in national and EP elections and the experience of the top candidates.

44 E.g., Hix and Marsh, ‘Punishment or Protest?’

45 We thank one of the Journal's reviewers for pointing this out.

46 We do not estimate the squared and cubed effects of Vote share as initial investigations showed effects of an implausible magnitude under this specification. The substantive results of the key variables of interest for our investigation remained the same.

47 Marsh, ‘Testing the Second-Order Election Model after Four European Elections’; Reif, ‘National Election Cycles and European Elections, 1979 and 1984’.

48 Hix and Marsh, ‘Punishment or Protest?’

49 Van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? Carrubba and Timpone, ‘Explaining Vote Switching Across First- and Second-Order Elections’; Hix and Marsh, ‘Punishment or Protest?’

50 Hobolt, Spoon and Tilley, ‘A Vote Against Europe?’

51 Hix and Marsh, ‘Punishment or Protest?’

52 Farrell and Scully, Representing Europe's Citizens?

53 Farrell, David, Hix, Simon, Johnson, Mark and Scully, Roger, ‘EPRG 2000 and 2006 MEP Surveys Dataset’ (available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/EPRG/, 2006)Google Scholar; Farrell and Scully, Representing Europe's Citizens?

54 Farrell and Scully, Representing Europe's Citizens?

55 Farrell and Scully, Representing Europe's Citizens?, p. 77.

56 Farrell and Scully, Representing Europe's Citizens?, p. 77. The coding is as follows: Austria 2.9, Belgium 2.9, Cyprus 2.9, Czech Republic 2.9, Denmark 7.1, Estonia 7.1, Finland 7.1, France 1.4, Germany 1.4, Greece, 1.4, Hungary 1.4, Ireland 10, Italy 7.1, Latvia 2.9, Lithuania 7.1, Luxembourg 7.1, Malta 10, Netherlands 2.9, Poland 1.4, Portugal 1.4, Slovenia 2.9, Slovakia 2.9, Spain 1.4, Sweden 2.9 and United Kingdom 1.4 (1979–94 = 4.3).

57 E.g. Hix and Marsh, ‘Punishment or Protest?’

58 Hix, Simon, Noury, Abdul and Roland, Gerard, Democracy in the European Parliament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

59 Van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe?

60 The Bonferroni outlier test revealed four outliers in the fixed effects model. We removed these observations and reran the analysis. We also reran Models 4 and 5 with a party mean level of political expertise. The substantive results still hold. See Table 1A in the Appendix.

61 To simplify matters, we calculated the effect for social democratic parties, the reference category. Year and country effects are ignored.

62 We also investigated whether the difference in turnout from the previous national election mattered for the effect of experience. It did not. The correlation between difference in turnout and experience is weak.