Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:28:21.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Structure and Party Support in the East Asian Democracies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2016

Ian McAllister
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A stable and effective party system depends on consistent and enduring support from social groups. Using the Lipset-Rokkan paradigm as a point of departure, this article tests the relationship between social structure and party support in four East Asian democracies (Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan) and two Western democracies (Australia and New Zealand) using the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Using Australia and New Zealand as a reference point, the results show that the four Lipset-Rokkan social cleavages are only loosely related to party support in the four East Asian nations, mainly through center-periphery and urban-rural divisions. The absence of an owner-worker cleavage is explained by the suppression of labor-based parties in these countries. More generally, the results suggest the importance of the socializing experiences associated with the democratic transitions in each of the four newer democracies.

Keywords

political partiesvotingsocial cleavagesdemocratization
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Party Choice and Partisanship in East Asia , August 2007 , pp. 225 - 249
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. Lipset, Seymour Martin and Rokkan, Stein, “Introduction.” In Lipset, Seymour Martin and Rokkan, Stein, eds., Party Systems and Voter Alignments (New York: Free Press, 1967).Google Scholar

2. See Heo, Uk and Stockton, Hans, “The Impact of Democratic Transition on Elections and Parties in South Korea,” Party Politics 11 (2005): 674–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Lipset, and Rokkan, , “Introduction.” Google Scholar

4. Mair, Peter, “The Freezing Hypothesis: An Evaluation.” In Karvonen, Lauri, Kuhnle, Stein, and Lipset, Seymour Martin, eds., Party Systems and Voter Alignments Revisited (London: Routledge, 2004).Google Scholar

5. Rose, Richard and Urwin, Derek, “Social Cohesion, Political Parties, and Strains in Regimes,” Comparative Political Studies 2 (1969): 7–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. See Lijphart, Arend, “Religion vs. Linguistic vs. Class Voting,” American Political Science Review 73 (1979): 442–458; Dix, Robert H., “Cleavage Structures and Party Systems in Latin America.” Comparative Politics 22 (1989): 23–38; and Knutsen, Oddbjørn, “Cleavage Dimensions in Ten West European Countries,” Comparative Political Studies 21 (1989): 495–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. See Franklin, Mark et al., Electoral Change: Responses to Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Dalton, Russell J., “The Decline of Party Identifications.” In Dalton, Russell J. and Wattenberg, Martin P., eds., Parties Without Partisans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar

8. Kitschelt, Herbert, “Divergent Paths of Postcommunist Democracies.” In Diamond, Larry and Gunther, Richard, eds., Political Parties and Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001); Whitefield, Stephen and Evans, Geoffrey, “Political Culture Versus Rational Choice: Explaining Responses to Transition in the Czech Republic and Slovakia,” British Journal of Political Science 29 (1999): 129–155.Google Scholar

9. McAllister, Ian and White, Stephen, “Political Parties and Democratic Consolidation in Post-communist Societies,” Party Politics 13 (March 2007): 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. See Shin, Doh Chull, Mass Politics and Culture in Democratizing Korea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); and Dalton, Russell and Shin, Doh Chull, eds., Citizens, Democracy and Markets Around the Pacific Rim (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).Google Scholar

11. Bean, Clive, “Class and Party in the Anglo-American Democracies: The Case of New Zealand in Perspective,” British Journal of Political Science 18 (1988): 303–321; McAllister, Ian, Political Behaviour: Citizens, Parties and Elites in Australia (Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. McAllister, and White, , “Political Parties and Democratic Consolidation,” p. 210.Google Scholar

13. Ibid. Google Scholar

14. Hann, Chris and Dunn, Elizbath, Civil Society: Challenging Western Models (London: Routledge, 1996); Howard, Marc Morje, The Weakness of Civil Society in Postcommunist Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Wade, Robert, Governing the Market (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

15. The elections were: 2004 Australia; 2004 Japan; 2004 Korea; 2002 New Zealand; 2004 Philippines; and 2001 Taiwan.Google Scholar

16. Whitten, Guy D. and Palmer, Harvey D., “Heightening Comparativists' Concern for Model Choice: Voting Behavior in Great Britain and the Netherlands,” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1996): 231–260. Strictly speaking, multinomial probit is a more appropriate method for analyzing voting behavior, but it is less easy to interpret and to calculate, and thus we use MNL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. Halliday, John, “Recession, Revolution and Metropolis-Periphery Relations in East-Asia with Special Reference to Japan,” Journal of Contemporary Asia 1 (1977): 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Lee, Hee-Yeon, “Growth Determinants in the Core-Periphery of Korea.” International Regional Science Review 12 (1989): 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Kornichi, Peter F. and McMullen, James, Religion in Japan: Arrows to Heaven and Earth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

20. Kim, Andrew Eungi, “Characteristics of Religious Life in South Korea: A Sociological Survey,” Review of Religious Research 43 (2002): 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Clart, Philip and Jones, Charles B., eds., Religion in Modern Taiwan: Tradition and Innovation in a Changing Society (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2003).Google Scholar

22. The correlation between center-periphery and urban-rural is -.70 (p <.000) in the Philippines, -.32 (p <.000) in Taiwan, and -.19 (p <.000) in Japan.Google Scholar

23. Chen, Shyh-Jer, Ko, Jyh-Jer, and Lawler, John, “Changing Patterns of Industrial Relations in Taiwan,” Industrial Relations 42 (2003): 315–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. One factor affecting these estimates is the age at which individuals are eligible to vote, which is twenty in Japan and Taiwan, nineteen in Korea, and eighteen in the Philippines and Thailand.Google Scholar

25. Vowles, Jack et al., eds., Voters' Veto: The 2002 Election in New Zealand and the Consolidation of Minority Government (Auckland: Auckland University Press, 2004).Google Scholar

26. McAllister, , Political Behaviour; and Aitkin, Don, Stability and Change in Australian Politics (Canberra: ANU Press, 1982).Google Scholar

27. Miller, Raymond, “New Zealand's Multi-Party System: Consolidation of the Cartel Model Under Proportional Representation.” In Marsh, Ian, ed., Political Parties in Transition? (Sydney: Federation Press, 2006).Google Scholar

28. Flanagan, Scott C. et al., The Japanese Voter (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991); and Reed, Steven R., “Democracy and the Personal Vote: A Cautionary Tale from Japan,” Electoral Studies 13 (1994): 17–28.Google Scholar

29. Flanagan, et al., The Japanese Voter, analyzing results from the 1976 lower house elections, found no effect for age, but hypothesized that younger people would be more conservative. That prediction has not been borne out.Google Scholar

30. Shin, , Mass Politics and Culture in Democratizing Korea; and Saxer, Carl J., From Transition to Power Alternation: Democracy in South Korea, 1987–1997 (New York: Routledge, 2002).Google Scholar

31. Moon, Woojin, “Decomposition of Regional Voting in South Korea: Ideological Conflicts and Regional Interests,” Party Politics 11 (2005): 579–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Chu, Yun-han and Lin, Tse-min, “The Process of Democratic Consolidation in Taiwan: Social Cleavages, Electoral Competition and the Emerging Party System.” In Tien, Hung-Mao, ed., Taiwan's Electoral Politics and Democratic Transition (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1996); Yu, Ching-hsin, “The Evolving Party System in Taiwan,” Journal of Asian and African Studies 40 (2005): 105–123.Google Scholar

33. Chu, , “The Evolving Party System in Taiwan.” Google Scholar

34. The weight of each variable is estimated by summing the Wald values in each equation, and then calculating their contribution to the overall variance explained.Google Scholar

35. These total proportions of the variance explained are similar to those found elsewhere: see McAllister, and White, , “Political Parties and Democratic Consolidation.” Google Scholar

36. Mattlin, Mikael, “Nested Pyramid Structures: Political Parties in Taiwanese Elections,” China Quarterly 180 (2004): 1031–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. McNicoll, Goeffrey, “Policy Lessons of the East Asian Demographic Transition,” Population and Development Review 32 (2006): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. Root, Hilton L., “What Democracy Can Do for East Asia,” Journal of Democracy 13 (2002): 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Wong, Joseph, “Democratization and the Left: Comparing East Asia and Latin America,” Comparative Political Studies 37 (2004): 1213–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40. See Rose, Richard and Carnaghan, Elin, “Generational Effects on Attitudes to Communist Regimes: A Comparative Analysis,” Post-Soviet Affairs 11 (1995): 28–56; and Evans, Geoffrey and Whitefield, Stephen, “The Evolution of the Left and Right in Post-Soviet Russia,” Europe-Asia Studies 50 (1998): 1023–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar