Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:53:46.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not all social cleavages are the same: On the relationship between religious diversity and party system fragmentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

Christopher D. Raymond
Christopher D. Raymond*
Affiliation:
Queen's University Belfast
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Christopher D. Raymond, Queen's University Belfast, University Road, Belfast, Ulster BT7 1NN, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most studies examining the relationship between social cleavages and party system fragmentation maintain that higher levels of social diversity lead to greater party system fragmentation. However, most aggregate-level studies focus on one type of social cleavage: ethnic diversity. In order to develop a better understanding of how different cleavages impact electoral competition, this article considers another type of social cleavage: religious diversity. Contrary to previous literature, higher levels of religious diversity provide incentives for cross-religious cooperation, which in turn reduces party system fragmentation. Using a cross-national data set of elections from 1946–2011, the results show that, in contrast to most studies examining the effects of social cleavage diversity on the number of parties, higher religious diversity is associated with lower levels of party system fragmentation.

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 364 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2016 

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

REFERENCES

Alesina, Alberto, Devleeschauwer, Arnaud, Easterly, William, Kurlat, Sergio, and Wacziarg., Romain 2003. “Fractionalization.” Journal of Economic Growth 8:155–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, Mike, Cheibub, José Antonio, Limongi, Fernando, and Przeworski, Adam. 1996. “Classifying Political Regimes.” Studies in Comparative International Development 31:3–36.Google Scholar
Amorim Neto, Octavio, and Cox, Gary W. 1997. “Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures and the Number of Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 41:149–174.Google Scholar
Bakke, Elisabeth. 2010. “Central and East European Party Systems Since 1989.” In Central and Southeast European Politics Since 1989, ed. Ramet, Sabrina P. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 64–90.Google Scholar
Barker, Fiona, and McLeay, Elizabeth. 2000. “How Much Change? An Analysis of the Initial Impact of Proportional Representation on the New Zealand Parliamentary Party System.” Party Politics 6:131–154.Google Scholar
Bean, Clive. 1988. “Class and Party in the Anglo-American Democracies: The Case of New Zealand in Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science 18:303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bean, Clive. 1999. “The Forgotten Cleavage? Religion and Politics in Australia.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 32:551–568.Google Scholar
Berger, Peter L. 1963. “A Market Model for the Analysis of Ecumenicity.” Social Research 30:77–93.Google Scholar
Blais, André. 2005. “Accounting for the Electoral Success of the Liberal Party in Canada: Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association London, Ontario June 3, 2005.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 38:821–840.Google Scholar
Boix, Carles. 1999. “Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Industrial Democracies.” American Political Science Review 93:609–624.Google Scholar
Bormann, Nils-Christian, and Golder, Matt. 2013. “Electoral Systems Around the World: 1946–2011.” Electoral Studies 32:360–369.Google Scholar
Caramani, Daniele. 2004. The Nationalization of Politics: The Formation of National Electorates and Party Systems in Western Europe. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, William Robert, and Golder, Matt. 2006. “Rehabilitating Duverger's Theory Testing the Mechanical and Strategic Modifying Effects of Electoral Laws.” Comparative Political Studies 39:679–708.Google Scholar
Coleman, James S. 1956. “Social Cleavage and Religious Conflict.” Journal of Social Issues 12:44–56.Google Scholar
Colomer, Josep M. 2005. “It's Parties That Choose Electoral Systems (or, Duverger's Laws Upside Down).” Political Studies 53:1–21.Google Scholar
Coppedge, Michael. 1997. “District Magnitude, Economic Performance, and Party-System Fragmentation in Five Latin American Countries.” Comparative Political Studies 30:156–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duncan, Fraser. 2006. “A Decade of Christian Democratic Decline: The Dilemmas of the CDU, ÖVP and CDA in the 1990s.” Government and Opposition 41:469–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1963. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Elff, Martin, and Rossteutscher, Sigrid. 2011. “Stability or Decline? Class, Religion and the Vote in Germany.” German Politics 20:107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enyedi, Zsolt. 2005. “The Role of Agency in Cleavage Formation.” European Journal of Political Research 44:697–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ertman, Thomas. 2009. “Western European Party Systems and the Religious Cleavage.” In Religion, Class Coalitions, and Welfare States, eds. Van Kersbergen, Kees, and Manow, Philip. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 39–55.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 2003. “Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country.” Journal of Economic Growth 8:195–222.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D., and Laitin, David D.. 2003. “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War.” American Political Science Review 97:75–90.Google Scholar
Finke, Roger and Stark, Rodney. 1988. “Religious economies and sacred canopies: Religious mobilization in American cities, 1906.” American Sociological Review 53:41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geys, Benny. 2006. “District Magnitude, Social Heterogeneity and Local Party System Fragmentation.” Party Politics 12:281–297.Google Scholar
Gill, Anthony J. 1994. “Rendering unto Caesar? Religious Competition and Catholic Political Strategy in Latin America, 1962–79.” American Journal of Political Science 38:403–425.Google Scholar
Golder, Matt. 2005. “Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946–2000.” Electoral Studies 24:103–121.Google Scholar
Grzymala-Busse, Anna. 2012. “Why Comparative Politics Should Take Religion (More) Seriously.” Annual Review of Political Science 15:421–442.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Donald L. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict: Theories, Patterns, and Policies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Iannaccone, Laurence R., Finke, Roger, and Stark, Rodney. 1997. “Deregulating Religion: The Economics of Church and State.” Economic Inquiry 35:350–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelen, Ted G., and Wilcox, Clyde. 2002. “The Political Roles of Religion.” In Religion and Politics in Comparative Perspective: The One, the Few, and the Many, eds. Jelen, Ted Gerard, and Wilcox, Clyde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 314–329.Google Scholar
Kalyvas, Stathis N. 1996. The Rise of Christian Democracy in Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kalyvas, Stathis N., and van Kersbergen, Kees. 2010. “Christian Democracy.” Annual Review of Political Science 13:183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C. 2001. The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Leeman, Lucas, and Mares, Isabela. 2014. “The Adoption of Proportional Representation.” Journal of Politics 76:461–478.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin and Rokkan, Stein, eds. 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-national Perspectives. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lowery, David, van Witteloostuijn, Arjen, Peli, Gábor, Brasher, Holly, Otjes, Simon, and Gherghina, Sergiu. 2013. “Policy Agendas and Births and Deaths of Political Parties.” Party Politics 19:381–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucardie, Paul, and ten-Napel, Hans-Martien. 1994. “Between Confessionalism and Liberal-Conservativism: The Christian Democratic Parties of Belgium and the Netherlands.” In Christian Democracy in Europe: A Comparative Perspective, ed. Hanley, David. London: Pinter, 51–70.Google Scholar
Lundell, Krister. 2010. The Origin of Electoral Systems in the Post-War Era. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Madrid, Raúl L. 2005. “Indigenous Voters and Party System Fragmentation in Latin America.” Electoral Studies 24:689–707.Google Scholar
Medeiros, Mike, and Noël, Alain. 2013. “The Forgotten Side of Partisanship: Negative Party Identification in Four Anglo-American Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 47:1022–1046.Google Scholar
Miller, Kent D. 2002. “Competitive Strategies of Religious Organizations.” Strategic Management Journal 23:435–456.Google Scholar
Ordeshook, Peter, and Shvetsova, Olga. 1994. “Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude, and the Number of Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 38:100–123.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2011. “Table: Christian Population in Numbers by Country.” http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/table-christian-population-in-numbers-by-country (Accessed on Auguest 1, 2014).Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2014. “Table: Religious Diversity Index Scores by Country.” http://www.pewforum.org/2014/04/04/religious-diversity-index-scores-by-country (Accessed on Auguest 1, 2014).Google Scholar
Potter, Joshua D. 2014. “Demographic Diversity and District-Level Party Systems.” Comparative Political Studies, 47:1801–1829.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 1982. Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, Violence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Sprague, John. 1986. Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago, NY: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ramonaité, Ainè. 2006. “The Development of the Lithuanian Party System: From Stability to Perturbation.” In Post-Communist EU Member States: Parties and Party Systems, ed. Jungerstam-Mulders, Susanne. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 69–90.Google Scholar
Raymond, Christopher D. and Feltch, Brian M. Barros. 2014. “Parties, Cleavages and Issue Evolution: The Case of the Religious–Secular Cleavage In Chile.” Party Politics 20:429–443.Google Scholar
Raymond, Christopher D. 2015. “The Organizational Ecology of Ethnic Cleavages: The Nonlinear Effects of Ethnic Diversity on Party System Fragmentation.” Electoral Studies 37:109–119.Google Scholar
Rokkan, Stein. 1970. Citizens, Elections, Parties. New York, NY: David McCay.Google Scholar
Ryan, Timothy J. 2014. “Reconsidering Moral Issues in Politics.” Journal of Politics 76:380–397.Google Scholar
Singer, Matthew M., and Stephenson, Laura B.. 2009. “The Political Context and Duverger's Theory: Evidence at the District Level.” Electoral Studies 28:480–491.Google Scholar
Skikta, Linda J. 2010. “The Psychology of Moral Conviction.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4:267–281.Google Scholar
Smith, T. Alexander, and Tatalovich, Raymond. 2003. Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies. Toronto: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Stark, Rodney. 1999. “Micro Foundations of Religion: A Revised Theory.” Sociological Theory 17:264–289.Google Scholar
Stark, Rodney, and Finke, Roger. 2000. Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Stark, Rodney, and Iannaccone, Laurence R.. 1994. “A Supply-Side Reinterpretation of the ‘Secularization’ of Europe.” Journal for the Scientific Studies of Religion 33:230–252.Google Scholar
Statistics Lithuania. 2013. “Ethnicity, Mother Tongue and Religion.” http://osp.stat.gov.lt/en/web/guest/informaciniai-pranesimai?articleId=223122 (Accessed on July 1, 2015).Google Scholar
Stoll, Heather. 2008. “Social Cleavages and the Number of Parties: How the Measures You Choose Affect the Answers You Get.” Comparative Political Studies 41:1439–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoll, Heather. 2013. Changing Societies, Changing Party Systems. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Studlar, Donley T., Cagossi, Alessandro, and Duval, Robert D.. 2013. “Is Morality Policy Different? Institutional Explanations for Postwar Western Europe.” Journal of European Public Policy 20:353–371.Google Scholar
Taagepera, Rein. 1997. “Effective Number of Parties for Incomplete Data.” Electoral Studies 16:145–151.Google Scholar
Taagepera, Rein, and Shugart, Matthew Soberg. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Torcal, Mariano, and Mainwaring, Scott. 2003. “The Political Recrafting of Social Bases of Party Competition: Chile, 1973–95.” British Journal of Political Science 33:55–84.Google Scholar
Trejo, Guillermo. 2009. “Religious Competition and Ethnic Mobilization in Latin America: Why the Catholic Church Promotes Indigenous Movements in Mexico.” American Political Science Review 103:323–342.Google Scholar
Tribe, Laurence H. 1992. Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes. London: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Vaccarino, Franco, Kavan, Heather, and Gendall, Philip. 2011. “Spirituality and Religion in the Lives of New Zealanders.” Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Society 1:85–96.Google Scholar
van de Ven, Andrew H. 1976. “On the Nature, Formation, and Maintenance of Relations among Organizations.” The Academy of Management Review 1:24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Melinda Bollar. 1997. “The Demise of Denominationalism in Christian Schools.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36:13–24.Google Scholar
Wimmer, Andreas, Cederman, Lars-Erik, and Min, Brian. 2009. “Ethnic Politics and Armed Conflict: A Configurational Analysis of a New Global Dataset.” American Sociological Review 74:316–337.Google Scholar