Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T01:45:54.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Short-term matters: the determinants of reforms of the core democratic rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Camille Bedock
Camille Bedock*
Affiliation:
Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Bordeaux, Pessac, France
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Current theories on institutional change tend to interpret it either as the result of long-term gradual trends, or of disrupting shocks following periods of punctuated equilibrium. Less is known about the moments in which change is more frequent. Focusing on the short-term determinants of reforms of core democratic rules in consolidated democracies, the article shows that proximate shifts in the electoral arena have a distinctive impact on the number of institutional reforms that are adopted in a legislature. Using the empirical and theoretical findings of the literature on electoral reform, the article develops a model tested in statistical analyses aggregating a large sample of institutional reforms in Western European democracies between 1990 and 2010. The results show that rising electoral uncertainty measured by volatility, and the change of preferences of the actors in power measured by the advent of new forces in government lead to the adoption of more institutional reforms. These results appear consistent when some categories of reform are added or subtracted, giving confidence that this model can be applied to a wide range of institutional reforms.

Keywords

electoral reforminstitutional reformdemocracyWestern Europe
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 8 , Supplement 1 , February 2016 , pp. 73 - 93
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2015 

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

Andrews, J.T. and Jackman, R.W. (2005), ‘Strategic fools: electoral rule choice under extreme uncertainty’, Electoral Studies 24(1): 65–84.Google Scholar
Bartolini, S. and Mair, P. (1990), Identity, Competition and Electoral Availability: The Stabilisation of European Electorates, 1885-1985, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bawn, K. (1993), ‘The logic of institutional preferences: German electoral law as a social choice outcome’, American Journal of Political Science 37(4): 965–989.Google Scholar
Bedock, C. (2011), ‘Du mattarellum au porcellum: une comparaison des réformes électorales de 1993 et 2005 en Italie’, Pôle Sud 34(1): 27–44.Google Scholar
Bedock, C. (2014), Reforming Democracy: Institutional Engineering in Western Europe, 1990-2010, Florence: European University Institute.Google Scholar
Bedock, C., Mair, P. and Wilson, A. (2012), ‘Institutional change in advanced European democracies: an exploratory assessment’. EUI Working Papers RCSAS – EUDO Democracy Observatory (2012/11).http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/20817.Google Scholar
Benoit, K. (2007), ‘Electoral laws as political consequences: explaining the origins and change of electoral institutions’, Annual Review of Political Science 10: 363–390.Google Scholar
Blais, A., Dobrzynska, A. and Indridason, I. (2004), ‘To adopt or not to adopt proportional representation : the politics of institutional choice’, British Journal of Political Science 35(1): 182–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix, C. (1999), ‘Setting the rules of the game: the choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies’, American Political Science Review 93(3): 609–624.Google Scholar
Bol, D. (2013), ‘Electoral reform, values and party self-interest’. Party Politics, 1354068813511590.Google Scholar
Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Karp, J.A. (2002), ‘When might institutions change? Elite support for direct democracy in three nations’, Political Research Quarterly 55(4): 731–754.Google Scholar
Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Karp, J.A. (2006), ‘Why politicians like electoral institutions: self interest, values, or ideology?’, Journal of Politics 68(2): 434–446.Google Scholar
Calvo, E. (2009), ‘The competitive road to proportional representation’, World Politics 61(2): 254–295.Google Scholar
Cameron, A.C. and Trivedi, P.K. (2001), ‘Essentials on count data regression’, in B.H. Baltagi ed. A Companion to Theoretical Econometrics, Oxford: Blackwell, 331–348.Google Scholar
Colomer, J. (2001), ‘Disequilibrium institutions and pluralist democracy’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 13(3): 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colomer, J. (2005), ‘It’s parties that choose electoral systems (or, Duverger’s laws upside down)’, Political Studies 53(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (1999), ‘Political support in advanced industrial democracies’, in P. Norris (ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–77.Google Scholar
Gallagher, M. and Mitchell, P. (eds) (2005), The Politics of Electoral Reform, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greif, A. and Leitin, D.D. (2004), ‘A theory of endogenous institutional change’, American Political Science Review 98(4): 633–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbe, J.M. (2011), Negat ive Binomial Regression , 2nd edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, M. and Deschouwer, K. (2011), ‘Veto players and electoral reform in Belgium’, West European Politics 34(3): 626–643.Google Scholar
Huntington, S.P. (1965), ‘Political development and political decay’, World Politics 17(3): 386–430.Google Scholar
Immergut, E.M. (1990), ‘Institutions, veto points, and policy results: a comparative analysis of health care’, Journal of Public Policy 10(4): 391–416.Google Scholar
Immergut, E.M. (1992), Health Polit ics: Interests and Institutions in Western Europe , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, K. and Leyenaar, M. (2011), ‘A conceptual framework for major, minor, and technical electoral reform’, West European Politics 34(3): 495–513.Google Scholar
Jones, B.D. and Baumgartner, F.R. (2012), ‘From there to here: punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing’, Policy Studies Journal 40(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999), Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (2011), ‘Cultural explanations of electoral reform: a policy cycle model’, West European Politics 34(3): 531–550.Google Scholar
Pedersen, M.N. (1979), ‘The dynamics of European party systems: changing patterns of electoral volatility’, European Journal of Political Research 7(1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Pilet, J.-B. (2008), ‘The future is imagination, the present is reality: why do big ruling parties oppose majority systems? A Belgian case study’, Representation 44(1): 41–50.Google Scholar
Pilet, J.-B. and Bol, D. (2011), ‘Party preferences and electoral reform: how time in government affects the likelihood of supporting electoral change’, West European Politics 34(3): 568–586.Google Scholar
Rahat, G. (2004), ‘The study of the politics of electoral reform in the 1990 s: theoretical and methodological lessons’, Comparative Politics 36(4): 461–479.Google Scholar
Remmer, K.L. (2008), ‘The politics of institutional change: electoral reform in Latin America 1978-2002’, Party Politics 14(1): 5–30.Google Scholar
Renwick, A. (2010), The Politics of Electoral Reform: Changing the Rules of Democracy, 1st edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Renwick, A. (2011), ‘Electoral reform in Europe since 1945’, West European Politics 34(3): 456–477.Google Scholar
Renwick, A., Hanretty, C. and Hine, D. (2009), ‘Partisan self-interest and electoral reform: the new Italian law of 2005’, Electoral Studies 28(3): 437–447.Google Scholar
Rokkan, S. (1970), Citizens, Elections, Parties. Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development, New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
Roller, E. (2003), ‘Conceptualizing and measuring institutions of democratic governance: a critical review and empirical validation of veto player indexes’, ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Roller, E. (2005), The Performance of Democracies: Political Institutions and Public Policies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shugart, M.S. (2003), ‘Extreme electoral systems and the appeal of the mixed-member alternative’, in M.S. Shugart and M.P. Wattenberg (eds), Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–53.Google Scholar
Shugart, M.S. and Wattenberg, M.P. (2003), Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?, USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steinmo, S. (2010), The Evolution of Modern Stat es: Sweden, Japan, and the United States , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, W. and Thelen, K. (eds) (2005), Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Industrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (1990), Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Perspective, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002), Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vassallo, S. (2005), ‘The constitutional reforms of the center-right’, in C. Guarnieri and J.L. Newell (eds), Quo Vadis? Bologna: Istituto Carlo Catteneo, 117–135.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bedock Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Bedock Supplementary Material(File)
File 67.2 KB