Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:39:57.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partisanship and Citizen Politics in East Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2016

Yun-han Chu  and
Min-hua Huang
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article assesses the relative importance of partisanship in explaining level of citizens' political engagement within a multivariate framework. In particular, we examine if the relative worth of partisan attachment in explaining civic engagement differs systematically between East Asian emerging democracies and established democracies. We find that partisanship in East Asia exerts just as much influence on citizens' engagement in politics as in established democracies. The global trend in which interest associations and social movements are becoming vigorous competitors to parties for the opportunity to represent and mobilize citizens in democratic process has also spread to East Asia.

Keywords

partisanshippolitical participationEast Asian democracycitizen politics
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Party Choice and Partisanship in East Asia , August 2007 , pp. 295 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 

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

Notes

1. Campbell, Angus et al., The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960); Campbell, Angus et al., Elections and the Political Order (New York: Wiley, 1967).Google Scholar

2. Borre, Ole and Katz, Daniel, “Party Identification and Its Motivational Base in a Multiparty System,” Scandinavian Political Studies 8 (1973): 69–111; Miller, Warren, “The Cross-National Use of Party Identification as a Stimulus to Political Inquiry.” In Budge, Ian, Crewe, Ivor, and Farlie, Dennis, eds., Party Identification and Beyond (New York: Wiley, 1976); Miller, Warren and Merrill Shanks, J., The New American Voter (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

3. Dalton, Russell J., “Partisan Mobilization, Cognitive Mobilization and the Changing American Electorate,” Electoral Studies (forthcoming).Google Scholar

4. Hall, Peter and Taylor, Rosemary, “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms,” Political Studies 44, no. 5 (1996): 936–957.Google Scholar

5. Wattenberg, Martin, The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952–96 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998); Mair, Peter and van Biezen, Ingrid, “Party Membership in Twenty European Democracies, 1980–2000,” Party Politics 7, no. 1 (2001): 5–21.Google Scholar

6. Lipset, Seymour Martin, “The Americanization of the European Left.” In Diamond, Larry and Gunther, Richard, eds., Political Parties and Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001).Google Scholar

7. Ibid., p. 54.Google Scholar

8. Dalton, , “Partisan Mobilization, Cognitive Mobilization.” Google Scholar

9. Schmitter, Philippe, “Parties Are Not What They Once Were.” In Diamond, Larry and Gunther, Richard, eds., Political Parties and Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001).Google Scholar

10. It is worth noting that the two aspects of institutionalization are empirically related but conceptually distinctive. See Randall, Vicky and Svåsand, Lars, “Party Institutionalization in New Democracies,” Party Politics 8, no. 1 (2002): 5–29.Google Scholar

11. Almond, Gabriel and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963); Brady, Henry, Verba, Sidney, and Schlozman, Kay, “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation,” American Political Science Review 89, no. 2 (1995): 271–294; Lipset, Seymour Martin, “The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited,” American Sociological Review 59 (1994): 1–22; Rosenstone, Stephen and Hansen, John, Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America (New York: Macmillan, 1993); Verba, Sidney, Nie, Norman, and Kim, J., Participation and Political Equality: A Seven-Nation Comparison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

12. Almond, and Verba, , The Civic Culture; Verba, , Nie, , and Kim, , Participation and Political Equality. Google Scholar

13. Thomassen, Jacques and van Deth, Jan W., “Political Involvement and Democratic Attitudes.” In Barnes, Samuel and Simon, Janos, eds., The Post-Communist Citizens (Budapest: Erasmus Foundation, 1998); Bratton, Michael, Mattes, Robert, and Gyimah-Boadi, E., Learning About Reform: People, Democracy, and Markets in Africa (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar

14. Bratton, , Mattes, , and Gyimah-Boadi, , Learning About Reform, p. 296.Google Scholar

15. Putnam, Robert, Leonardi, R., and Nanetti, R., Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993); Putnam, Robert, Bowling Alone (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000); Seligson, Mitchell, “Civic Association and Democratic Participation in Central America: A Test of the Putnam Thesis,” Comparative Political Studies 32 (1999): 342–362.Google Scholar

16. Jackman, Robert W. and Miller, R. A., “Voter Turnout in the Industrial Democracies During the 1980s,” Comparative Political Studies 127 (1995): 467–492; Mainwaring, Scott and Scully, Timothy, “Introduction: Party Systems in Latin America.” In Mainwaring, and Scully, , eds., Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1995), pp. 1–34.Google Scholar

17. Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay, and Brady, Henry, Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995).Google Scholar

18. Rosenstone, and Hansen, , Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America; Verba, , Nie, , and Kim, , Participation and Political Equality. Google Scholar

19. See the Appendix; the two dependent variables are four-point scales that sum the answers of three yes/no items. Zero means the respondent did not participate in any political activity, and three means participation in all three. Missing value is treated as a negative answer by assumption.Google Scholar

20. The CSES is available at www.cses.org, and we use the April 10, 2006, release. The East Asia Barometer is available at http://eacsurvey.law.ntu.edu.tw/.Google Scholar

21. We adopt the definition of internal efficacy proposed by Niemi, Richard, Craig, Stephen, and Mattei, Franco, “Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study,” American Political Science Review 85 (1991): 1407–1413. “Internal efficacy refers to beliefs about one's own competence to understand, and to participate effectively in, politics” (p. 1407). The items we use are also two of the original seven items in their article, with minor modification of phrases.Google Scholar

22. The basic specification of the SEM model is the same as an ordinal logistic regression model. The only difference is that we treat Internal Efficacy as an intervening variable to be explained by other independent variables.Google Scholar

23. Our analysis also shows relatively weak partisanship in East Asian countries as opposed to Western democracies. The analysis by Emile Sheng in this issue attributes this to the fact that East Asian democracies have had a relatively short time span of electoral and partisan politics. There has not yet been enough time to institutionalize partisanship through mechanisms such as cumulative electoral experiences and parental socialization. See also Dalton, Russell J. and Weldon, Steve, “Partisanship and Party System Institutionalization,” Party Politics 13 (2007): 179–196.Google Scholar

24. Electoral participation encompasses having voted in the last election, trying to persuade others how to vote, and participating in campaign activities. See Appendix for additional detail.Google Scholar

25. Also see Karp, Jeffrey and Banducci, Susan, “Party Mobilization and Political Participation in New and Old Democracies,” Party Politics 13 (2007): 275–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Nonelectoral participation includes three items: (1) contacting politicians or officials, (2) protest or demonstration, and (3) work with others to share concern.Google Scholar

27. Tables 1 and 2 are the results of ordinal regressions for electoral and nonelectoral participation. Each ordinal regression views the model as three separate binary logistic regressions by dichotomizing the (0,1,2,3) ordinal scale into a (0,1) binary scale. For example, threshold (0) combines categories into (0/1,2,3), threshold category (1) into (0,1/2,3), and threshold category (2) into (0,1,2/3). Therefore, the threshold (0) represents “the constant of the binary logistic regression” if we recode the four-point scale into 0 and 1 (1,2, and 3) and run the binary logistic regression. Threshold (1) means “the constant” if we recode the ordinal dependent variable by category 1 into a binary variable and run the regression. Similar interpretation can apply to threshold (2).Google Scholar

28. The expected probability is calculated with a baseline profile for those who are youngest and have the lowest level of religiosity, perception of corruption, and education.Google Scholar

29. For a more extensive analysis of citizen activism in Hong Kong see Wai-man, Lam, Understanding the Political Culture of Hong Kong: The Paradox of Activism and Depoliticization (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2004).Google Scholar

30. In Taiwan and Japan, political mobilization at the grassroots level is usually associated with local networks affiliated with traditional religious organizations, especially in the rural areas. See Ikeda, Ken'ichi and Richey, Sean E., “Japanese Network Capital: The Impact of Social Networks on Japanese Political Participation,” Journal of Political Behavior 27 (2005): 239–260; Ming-hui, Tsai and Mau-kueig, Chang, “Formation and Transformation of Local P'ai-hsi: A Case Study of Ho-k'ou Town,” Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology Academia Sinica 11 (1994): 125–156; Hsiang-shui, Chen, “Political Activities in Pinnan Village: A Case Study of a Southern Taiwanese Village,” Chinese Studies 17 (1999): 127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. A reasonable speculation for the poor fit of Taiwan and Japan is that there must be some country-specific factors beyond the scope of our model. We believe these factors are related to citizen-initiative contact about personal issues since the two countries for a long time had the same electoral system (single, nontransferable vote) and a very similar party system (one party dominated). Under this system, nonelectoral participation is usually initiated for local or personal purposes and most politicians try to exploit the chances of marketing themselves and demonstrate their political impact to win popular support. This is a key factor of intraparty competition under the one party-dominated system with SNTV rule with multiple party candidates in a district. See Horiuchi, Yusaku, Institutions, Incentives and Electoral Participation in Japan: Cross-Level and Cross-National Perspectives (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Model specification at the individual level of HGLM is exactly the same as ordinal logistic regression. But at country level, two dummy variables are added to the HGLM model, one signifying established democracies and the other Asian emerging democracies (Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Philippines), to verify if the random component shows significant unexplained variance. For the sake of space, we do not report the detailed results of our HGLM models. Only a summary of the findings is reported here. Interested readers are welcome to send us a request for a copy of detailed results. Only twenty-five countries are included in the HGLM model. We excluded Japan, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand because of very high missing values in some variables.Google Scholar

33. This finding is based on lack of statistical significance for the contextual variables, specifically two dummy variables, Established Democracy and Asian Democracy, adding to the country-level part of multilevel specification.Google Scholar

34. We also ran ordinal logistic regressions for EAB data. Since the results are consistent with the SEM analysis, we only report the latter.Google Scholar

35. We add more explanatory variables to the country-specific model one at a time depending on which variable has the largest modification index. We stop adding new variables when the fit statistics pass the acceptable level. We apply the same specification for each country sample, and overfitting may be a potential problem. However, since the aim of our SEM modeling is to explore peculiarity of each country instead of finding a universal structure of causal relationships, we decide to let the data speak for themselves. The acceptable level of the fit statistics is as follows: CFI is greater than or equal to 0.95, TLI is greater than or equal to 0.9, RMSEA is less than 0.06, WRMR is less than 0.9. See Muthén, Linda K. and Muthén, Bengt O., Mplus User's Guide: Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables (Los Angeles: Muthén and Muthén, 2001), p. 362.Google Scholar

36. Bunce, Valerie J., “The Return of the Left and the Future of Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe.” In Yesilada, B., ed., Political Parties: Essays in Honor of Samuel Elderseld (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999), pp. 151–176.Google Scholar

37. Dalton, Russell J. and Wattenberg, Martin P., eds., Parties Without Partisans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 275.Google Scholar