Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:15:19.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Government-Opposition or Left-Right? The Institutional Determinants of Voting in Legislatures*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2015

Simon Hix  and
Abdul Noury
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study uses roll-call voting data from 16 legislatures to investigate how the institutional context of politics—such as whether a country is a parliamentary or presidential regime, or has a single-party, coalition or minority government—shapes coalition formation and voting behavior in parliaments. It uses a geometric scaling metric to estimate the “revealed space” in each of these legislatures and a vote-by-vote statistical analysis to identify how much of this space can be explained by government-opposition dynamics as opposed to parties’ (left-right) policy positions. Government-opposition interests, rather than parties’ policy positions, are found to be the main drivers of voting behavior in most institutional contexts. In contrast, issue-by-issue coalition building along a single policy dimension is only found under certain restrictive institutional constraints: presidential regimes with coalition governments or parliamentary systems with minority governments. Put another way, voting in most legislatures is more like Westminster than Washington.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 249 - 273
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 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.)

Footnotes

*

London School of Economics and Political Science; New York University Abu Dhabi. We would like to thank Gary Cox, Brian Crisp, John Carey, Torun Dewan, John Huber, Amie Kreppel, Nolan McCarty, Slava Mikhaylov and seminar participants at LSE, Princeton, the University of Tokyo, and the European Political Science Association 2011 Conference for helpful comments. All the remaining errors are our own. We are also grateful to John Carey, Scott Desposato, Keith Poole, Yael Shomer, Elena Mielcova and the Voteworld project for sharing their data or making their data publicly available.

References

Aldrich, John, Montgomery, Jacob, and Sparks, David. 2014. ‘Polarization and Ideology: Partisan Sources of Low Dimensionality in Scaled Roll Call Analyses’. Political Analysis 22:435–456.Google Scholar
Andrews, Josephine T. 2002. When Majorities Fail: The Russian Parliament, 1990–1993. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baron, David, and Ferejohn, John. 1989. ‘Bargaining in Legislatures’. American Political Science Review 83:1181–1206.Google Scholar
Benedetto, Giacomo, and Hix, Simon. 2007. ‘The Rejected, the Dejected and the Ejected: Explaining Government Rebels in the 2001–2005 British House of Commons’. Comparative Political Studies 40:755–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, Laver, Michael, and Mikhaylov, Slava. 2009. ‘Treating Words as Data with Error: Uncertainty in Text Statements of Policy Positions’. American Journal of Political Science 53(2):495–513.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1948. ‘On the Rationale of Group Decision-Making’. Journal of Political Economy 56:23–34.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committee and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John M. 2007a. Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting’. American Journal of Political Science 51:92–107.Google Scholar
Carey, John M.. 2007b. ‘Carey Data Archive’. Available at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jcarey.Google Scholar
Carey, John M.. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John M., and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1995. ‘Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas’. Electoral Studies 14:417–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Raymond J., Ruppert, David, Stefanski, Leonard A., and Crainiceanu, Ciprian M.. 2006. Measurement Error in Nonlinear Models: A Modern Perspective, Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability Number 105, 2nd ed.Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Carroll, Royce, Lo, James, Lewis, Jeffrey, Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 2009. ‘Comparing NOMINATE and IDEAL: Points of Difference and Monte Carlo Tests’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34:555–591.Google Scholar
Cheibub, José Antonio. 2007. Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chiou, Fang-Yi. 2005. Jointly Estimating Party Effects and Ideologies. Princeton, NJ: Mimeo, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Clausen, Aage R., and Holmberg, Soren. 1977. ‘Legislative Voting Analysis in Disciplined Multi-Party Systems: The Swedish Case’. In William Adelotte (ed.), The History of Parliamentary Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D. 2007. ‘Lawmaking and roll calls’. Journal of Politics 69:457–469.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, and Jackman, Simon. 2009. ‘To Simulate or to NOMINATE’? Legislative Studies Quarterly 34:593–621.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. ‘The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data’. American Political Science Review 98:355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2011. ‘Managing Plenary Time: The U.S. Congress in Comparative Context’. In Eric Schickler and Frances E. Lee (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the American Congress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., Masuyama, Mikitaka, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2000. ‘Agenda Power in the Japanese House of Representatives’. Japanese Journal of Political Science 1:1–22.Google Scholar
Dewan, Torun, and Spirling, Arthur. 2011. ‘Strategic Opposition and Government Cohesion in Westminster Democracies’. American Political Science Review 105:337–358.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel, and Feddersen, Timothy J.. 1998. ‘Cohesion in Legislatures and the Vote of Confidence Procedure’. American Political Science Review 92:611–621.Google Scholar
Döring, Herbert. 2001. ‘Parliamentary Agenda Control and Legislative Outcomes in Western Europe’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 26:145–165.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Federico. 2004. ‘Frogs, Mice, and Mixed Electoral Institutions’. Journal of Legislative Studies 10:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueiredo, Argelina, and Limongi, Fernando. 2000. ‘Presidential Power, Legislative Organization, and Party Behavior in Brazil’. Comparative Politics 32:151–170.Google Scholar
Hansen, Martin Ejnar. 2006a. ‘Explaining Parliamentary Dimensionality Through Institutions’? Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL, 20–23 April.Google Scholar
Hansen, Martin Ejnar. 2006b. ‘The Dimensionality of European Parliaments: Comparing Denmark, Norway and Ireland’. Paper presented at the IPSA World Congress. Fukuoka, 9–13 July.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon. 2004. ‘Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: Explaining Voting Defection in the European Parliament’. World Politics 56:194–223.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon, Noury, Abdul, and Roland, Gérard. 2006. ‘Dimensions of Politics in the European Parliament’. American Journal of Political Science 50:494–511.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon, Noury, Abdul, and Roland, Gérard. 2007. Democratic Politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon, and Høyland, Bjørn. 2011. The Political System of the European Union 3rd ed.London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Huber, John. 1996. ‘The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies’. American Political Science Review 90:269–282.Google Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2010. ‘Selection Effects in Roll Call Votes’. British Journal of Political Science 40:225–235.Google Scholar
Hug, Simon, and Schulz, Tobias. 2007. ‘Left-Right Positions of Political Parties Switzerland’. Party Politics 13:305–330.Google Scholar
Jensen, Torben K. 2000. ‘Party Cohesion’. In Peter Esaiasson and Knut Heidar (eds), Beyond Westminster and Congress: The Nordic Experience. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Jun, Hae-Won, and Hix, Simon. 2009. ‘Party Competition in the Parliamentary Arena: The Case of the Korean National Assembly’. Party Politics 15:667–694.Google Scholar
Kam, Christopher J. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. ‘Where’s the Party’? British Journal of Political Science 23:235–266.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landi, Massimiliano, and Pelizzo, Riccardo. 2005. ‘A Spatial Analysis of the XIII Italian Legislature’. Working Paper Series No. 16-2005, Singapore Management University.Google Scholar
Lanfranchi, Prisca, and Lüthi, Ruth. 1999. ‘Cohesion of Party Groups and Interparty Conflict in the Swiss Parliament’. In Shaun Bowler, David M. Farrell and Richard S. Katz (eds), Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. Columbus: Ohio State Press.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael. 2006. ‘Legislatures and Parliaments in Comparative Context’. In Barry Weingast and Donald Wittman (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, Kenneth. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Londregan, John B. 2000. Legislative Institutions and Ideology in Chile. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Strøm, Kaare. 1995. ‘Coalition Termination and the Strategic Timing of Parliamentary Elections’. American Political Science Review 89:648–666.Google Scholar
Mattson, Ingvar, and Strøm, Kaare. 1995. ‘Parliamentary Committees’. In Herbert Döring (ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Mian, Atif, Sufi, Amir, and Trebbi, Francesco. 2012. ‘The Political Economy of the Subprime Mortgage Credit Expansion’. Working Paper Series No. 16107. Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, Scott. 2004. Patterns of Legislative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang C., Philipp, Wilfried, and Jenny, Marcelo. 2001. ‘Die Rolle der parlamentarischen Fraktionen’. In Wolfgang Müller, Marcelo Jenny, Barbara Steininger, Martin Dolezal, Wilfried Philipp and Sabine Preisl-Westphal (eds), Die Österreichischen Abgeordneten: Individuelle Präferenzen und politisches Verhalten. Wein: Wien UV.Google Scholar
Myagkov, Mikhail G., and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1996. ‘Czar Rule in the Russian Congress of People’s Deputies’? Legislative Studies Quarterly 21:3–40.Google Scholar
Noury, Abdul. 1999. Decision-Making in Transition: Voting Behavior in the Polish Parliament. Brussels: Mimeo, Free University.Google Scholar
Noury, Abdul, and Mielcova, Elena. 2005. ‘Electoral Performance and Voting Behavior in the Czech Republic’. Working Paper No. 2005-14, Institute of Government Studies, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Noury, Abdul, and Roland, Gerard. 2002. ‘European Parliament: Should it Have More Power?’. Economic Policy 17:279–319.Google Scholar
Pajala, Antti, Jakulin, Aleks, and Buntine, Wray. 2005. Parliamentary Group and Individual Voting Behaviour in the Finnish Parliament in Year 2003. Turku, Finland: Mimeo, University of Turku.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rahat, Gideon. 2004. Party Cohesion in the Israeli Parliament 1949–2003. Jerusalem, Israel: Mimeo, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Rasch, Bjørn Erik. 1999. ‘Electoral Systems, Parliamentary Committees, and Party Discipline’. In Shaun Bowler, David M. Farrell and Richard S. Katz (eds), Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. Columbus: Ohio State Press.Google Scholar
Rice, Stuart A. 1925. ‘The Behavior of Legislative Groups’. Political Science Quarterly 40:60–72.Google Scholar
Romer, Thomas, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1978. ‘Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agendas, and the Status Quo’. Public Choice 33:27–43.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Howard, and Voeten, Erik. 2004. ‘Analyzing Roll Calls with Perfect Spatial Voting’. American Journal of Political Science 48:620–632.Google Scholar
Saalfeld, Thomas. 1990. ‘The West German Bundestag After 40 Years’. West European Politics 13:68–89.Google Scholar
Samuels, David J., and Shugart, Matthew S.. 2010. Presidents, Parties, and Prime Ministers: How the Separation of Powers Affects Party Organization and Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl. 2003. ‘Ideology, Party and Interests in the British Parliament of 1841–47’. British Journal of Political Science 33:581–605.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1979. ‘Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models’. American Journal of Political Science 23:27–59.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1981. ‘Structure Induced Equilibrium in Legislative Choice’. Public Choice 37:509–519.Google Scholar
Shomer, Yael. 2009. ‘Electoral Systems and Intra-Party Candidate Selection Effects on Legislators’ Behavior’. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association. Toronto, Canada, 3–6 September.Google Scholar
Skjaeveland, Asbjørn. 1999. ‘A Danish Party Cohesion Cycle’. Scandinavian Political Studies 22:121–136.Google Scholar
Skjaeveland, Asbjørn. 2001. ‘Party Cohesion in the Danish Parliament’. Journal of Legislative Studies 7:35–56.Google Scholar
Spirling, Arthur, and McLean, Iain. 2007. ‘UK OC OK? Interpreting Optimal Classification Scores for the U.K. House of Commons’. Political Analysis 15:85–96.Google Scholar
Stjernquist, Nils, and Bjurulf, Bo. 1970. ‘Party Cohesion and Party Cooperation in the Swedish Parliament in 1964 and 1966’. Scandinavian Political Studies 5:129–164.Google Scholar
Strøm, Kaare. 1990. Minority Government and Majority Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strøm, Kaare, Muller, Wolfgang C., and Bergman, Torbjorn eds. 2011. Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1999. ‘Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies: An Empirical Analysis’. American Political Science Review 93:591–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wiesehomeier, Nina, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2007. Parties and Presidents in Latin America. Dataset. Dublin: Trinity College.Google Scholar
Zucco, Cesar, and Lauderdale, Benjamin E.. 2011. ‘Distinguishing Between Influences on Brazilian Legislative Behavior’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36:363–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucco, Cesar, and Power, Timothy. 2009. ‘Estimating Ideology of Brazilian Legislative Parties, 1990–2005’. Latin American Research Review 44:218–246.Google Scholar