Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-hl5gf Total loading time: 0.335 Render date: 2023-01-28T08:11:58.450Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true
  • English
American Political Science Review American Political Science Review

Article contents

Seniority-Based Nominations and Political Careers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2020

ALEXANDRA CIRONE Open the ORCID record for ALEXANDRA CIRONE[Opens in a new window] ,
GARY W. COX Open the ORCID record for GARY W. COX[Opens in a new window]  and
JON H. FIVA Open the ORCID record for JON H. FIVA[Opens in a new window]
ALEXANDRA CIRONE*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
GARY W. COX*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
JON H. FIVA*
Affiliation:
BI Norwegian Business School
*
Alexandra Cirone, Assistant Professor, Department of Government, Cornell University, aec287@cornell.edu.
Gary W. Cox, William Bennett Munro Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Science, Stanford University, gwcox@stanford.edu.
Jon H. Fiva, Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, BI Norwegian Business School, jon.h.fiva@bi.no.
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates party use of seniority systems to allocate nominations for elected and appointed offices. Such systems, which can regulate party members’ access to offices at multiple levels of their careers, are defined by two main rules or norms: an incumbent re-nomination norm and a seniority progression norm. Using comprehensive electoral and candidate data from Norwegian local and national elections from 1945 to 2019, we find systematic patterns consistent with these two norms. Our work illuminates an institutional aspect of candidate selection that the current literature has ignored while noting some of the important consequences of seniority-based nominations for party cohesion and stability.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 115 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 234 - 251
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

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

We are grateful to Michael Becher, Jens Olav Dahlgaard, Henning Finseraas, Helene Røhr, Chris Skovron, Dan Smith, and referees, for useful comments on an earlier draft. We thank Johannes Piene, Sigmund Tveit (Norwegian Centre for Research Data), Tuva Værøy, and Reidar Vøllo for excellent research assistance and help with data collection. Cirone and Fiva gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Norwegian Research Council (grant nr. 281191). Replication files are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VWFKDG.

References

Altonji, Joseph G, and Shakotko, Robert A.. 1987. “Do Wages Rise with Job Seniority?” The Review of Economic Studies 54 (3): 437–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagol, Santosh, and Fujiwara, Thomas. 2016. “The Runner-Up Effect.” Journal of Political Economy 124 (4): 927–991.10.1086/686746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Heléne. 2020a. “On the Returns to Holding Political Office (Is It Worth It?)” Conditionally accepted, The Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.10.1016/j.jebo.2020.08.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Heléne. 2020b. “Politicians’ Payments in a Proportional Party System.” Forthcoming, The European Economic Review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, Marianne, Bombardini, Matilde, and Trebbi, Francesco. 2014. “Is It Whom You Know or What You Know? An Empirical Assessment of the Lobbying Process.” American Economic Review 104 (12): 3885–3920.10.1257/aer.104.12.3885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhusal, Bhishma, Callen, Michael, Gulzar, Saad, Pande, Rohini, Prillaman, Soledad A. and Singhania, Deepak. 2020. “Does Revolution Work? Evidence from Nepal’s People’s War.” Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Black, Gordon S. 1972. “A Theory of Political Ambition: Career Choices and the Role of Structural Incentives.” American Political Science Review 66 (1): 144–159.10.2307/1959283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidal, Blanes i, Jordi, Mirko Draca, and Fons-Rosen, Christian. 2012. “Revolving Door Lobbyists.” American Economic Review 102 (7): 3731–48.10.1257/aer.102.7.3731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boatright, Robert G. 2014. Congressional Primary Elections. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calonico, Sebastian, Cattaneo, Matias D., and Titiunik, Rocío. 2014. “Robust Data-Driven Inference in the Regression-Discontinuity Design.” The Stata Journal 14 (4): 909–946.10.1177/1536867X1401400413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Dag Arne, Midtbø, Tor, Ringkjøb, Hans-Erik, and Aars, Jacob. 2008. “To valg med ny personvalgordning—kontinuitet eller endring?” Rokkansenteret Notat 9.Google Scholar
Cirone, Alexandra. 2020. “Dual Mandates, Patronage, and Partisanship: Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity in France.” Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., Fiva, Jon H., Smith, Daniel M., and Sørensen, Rune J.. 2020. “Moral Hazard in Electoral Teams.” CESifo Working Paper No. 8357.Google Scholar
Cross, William P., and Katz, Richard S.. 2013. The Challenges of Intra-Party Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlgaard, Jens Olav. 2016. “You Just Made It: Individual Incumbency Advantage under Proportional Representation.” Electoral Studies 44: 319–328.10.1016/j.electstud.2016.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlgaard, Jens Olav, and Pedersen, Rasmus Tue. 2020. “Must Voters Choose Between Political Competence and Descriptive Representation?” Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Dal Bó, Ernesto, and Finan, Frederico. 2018. “Progress and Perspectives in the Study of Political Selection.” Annual Review of Economics 10 (1): 541–575.10.1146/annurev-economics-080217-053221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal Bó, Ernesto, Finan, Frederico, Folke, Olle, Persson, Torsten, and Rickne, Johanna. 2017. “Who Becomes a Politician?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 132 (4): 1877–1914.10.1093/qje/qjx016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Rafaela M., Lindgren, Karl-Oskar, Oskarsson, Sven, and Vernby, Kåre. 2015. “Why Are Immigrants Underrepresented in Politics? Evidence from Sweden.” American Political Science Review 109 (4): 703–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Magalhaes, Leandro. 2015. “Incumbency Effects in a Comparative Perspective: Evidence from Brazilian Mayoral Elections.” Political Analysis 23 (1): 113–126.10.1093/pan/mpu012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel, Keane, Michael, and Merlo, Antonio. 2005. “A Political Economy Model of Congressional Careers.” American Economic Review 95 (1): 347–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djankov, Simeon, Porta, Rafael La, Silanes, Florencio Lopez-de, and Shleifer, Andrei. 2010. “Disclosure by Politicians.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2 (2): 179–209.Google Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C., and Spirling, Arthur. 2017. “Incumbency Effects and the Strength of Party Preferences: Evidence from Multiparty Elections in the United Kingdom.” The Journal of Politics 79 (3): 903–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C., and Hainmueller, Jens. 2009. “MPs for Sale? Returns to Office in Postwar British Politics.” American Political Science Review 103 (4): 513–533.10.1017/S0003055409990190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, David, Brady, David, Kawato, Sadafumi, and O’Halloran, Sharyn. 1997. “A Comparative Approach to Legislative Organization: Careerism and Seniority in the United States and Japan.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 965–998.10.2307/2111683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Titiunik, Rocío. 2015. “Using Regression Discontinuity to Uncover the Personal Incumbency Advantage.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10 (1): 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervik, Bjørn. 2012. “Second-Order Arguments for Second-Order Elections? Measuring “Election Stakes” in a Multilevel Context: The Case of Norway.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 22 (1): 27–50.10.1080/17457289.2011.642241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faccio, Mara, and Parsley, David C.. 2009. “Sudden Deaths: Taking Stock of Geographic Ties.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 44 (3): 683–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahey, Kevin. 2018. “The Perks of Being a Lawmaker: Returns to Office as a Legislative Goal.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 43 (1): 37–68.10.1111/lsq.12181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiva, Jon H., and Smith, Daniel M.. 2017. “Norwegian Parliamentary Elections, 1906-2013: Representation and Turnout across Four Electoral Systems.” West European Politics 40 (6): 1373–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiva, Jon H., and Smith, Daniel M.. 2018. “Political Dynasties and the Incumbency Advantage in Party-Centered Environments.” American Political Science Review 112 (3): 706–712.10.1017/S0003055418000047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiva, Jon H., and Røhr, Helene Lie. 2018. “Climbing the Ranks: Incumbency Effects in Party-List Systems.” European Economic Review 101: 142–156.10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.09.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, Olle. 2014. “Shades of Brown and Green: Party Effects in Proportional Election Systems.” Journal of the European Economic Association 12 (1): 1361–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Anthony, and Hall, Andrew B.. 2014. “Disentangling the Personal and Partisan Incumbency Advantages: Evidence from Close Elections and Term Limits.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9 (4): 501–531.10.1561/100.00014013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frech, Elena. 2016. “Policy Leadership and Re-Election in the European Parliament.” European Union Politics 17 (1): 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Michael, and Marsh, Michael, eds. 1988. Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Geys, Benny, and Mause, Karsten. 2013. “Moonlighting Politicians: A Survey and Research Agenda.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 19 (1): 76–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, Reuven Y., and Rahat, Gideon. 2006. “Candidate Selection: Methods and Consequences.” In Handbook of Party Politics, eds. Katz, Richard S. and Crotty, William, 109–121. London: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermansen, Silje Synnøve Lyder. 2018. “Striving for Influence: The Effect of Performance on Candidate Selection.” Party Politics 24 (4): 382–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirano, Shigeo. 2011. “Do Individual Representatives Influence Government Transfers? Evidence from Japan.” The Journal of Politics 73 (4): 1081–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollyer, James R., Klašnja, Marko, and Titiunik, Rocío. 2018. “Parties as Disciplinarians: The Electoral Strategies of Centrist Parties.” Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Hyytinen, Ari, Merilainen, Jaakko, Saarimaa, Tuukka, Toivanen, Otto, and Tukiainen, Janne. 2018a. “Public Employees as Politicians: Evidence from Close Elections.” American Political Science Review 112 (1): 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyytinen, Ari, Meriläinen, Jaakko, Saarimaa, Tuukka, Toivanen, Otto, and Tukiainen, Janne. 2018b. “When Does Regression Discontinuity Design Work? Evidence from Random Election Outcomes.” Quantitative Economics 9 (2): 1019–1051.10.3982/QE864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, Bengt, and Mortenberg, Erik Wettergren. 2013. “Local or Not? The Impact of Political System Factors on Media Election Coverage.” Journal of Mass Communication and Journalism 3 (6): Article 164.Google Scholar
Kam, Christopher J. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511576614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotakorpi, Kaisa, Poutvaara, Panu, and Terviö, Marko. 2017. “Returns to Office in National and Local Politics: A Bootstrap Method and Evidence from Finland.” The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 33 (3): 413–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, David S. 2008. “Randomized Experiments from Non-Random Selection in U.S. House Elections.” Journal of Econometrics 142 (2): 675–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, and Schickler, Eric. 2018. “On the Theory of Parties.” Annual Review of Political Science 21 (1): 175–193.10.1146/annurev-polisci-061915-123020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Riezman, Raymond. 1992. “Seniority in Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 86 (4): 951–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthoo, Abhinay, and Shepsle, Kenneth A.. 2014. “Seniority and Incumbency in Legislatures.” Economics & Politics 26 (1): 13–37.10.1111/ecpo.12024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narud, Hanne Marthe, and Valen, Henry. 2007. Demokrati og Ansvar: Politisk Representasjon i et Flerpartisystem [Democracy and Accountability: Political Representation in a Multi-Party System]. Oslo: N. W. Damm & Son.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1997. “Introduction: Theories of Recruitment.” In Passages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies, ed. Norris, Pippa, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oskarsson, Sven, , Christopher T., and Lindgren, Karl-Oskar. 2018. “It Runs in the Family.” Political Behavior 40 (4): 883–908.10.1007/s11109-017-9429-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peichl, Andreas, Pestel, Nico, and Siegloch, Sebastian. 2013. “The Politicians’ Wage Gap: Insights from German Members of Parliament.” Public Choice 156 (3–4): 653–676.10.1007/s11127-012-9921-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Querubin, Pablo, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2013. “The Control of Politicians in Normal Times and Times of Crisis: Wealth Accumulation by U.S. Congressmen, 1850–1880.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8 (4): 409–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranney, Austin. 1981. “Candidate Selection.” In Democracy at the Polls, eds. Butler, David, Penniman, Howard R., and Ranney, Austin, 75–106. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Ringkjøb, Hans-Erik, and Aars, Jacob. 2010. “Nominering og konstituering i norske kommunar.” Rokkansenteret notat 13.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1979. “Risk-Bearing and Progressive Ambition: The Case of Members of the United States House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science 23 (1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1942. Party Government. New York: Rinehart & Company.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Joseph A. 1966. Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States. Chicago: Rand MacNally.Google Scholar
Skaperdas, Stergios. 1996. “Contest Success Functions.” Economic Theory 7 (2): 283–290.10.1007/BF01213906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, Robert. 1986. The Economics of Rights, Co-operation and Welfare. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thompson, Daniel M., Feigenbaum, James J., Hall, Andrew B., and Yoder, Jesse. 2019. “Who Becomes a Member of Congress? Evidence from De-Anonymized Census Data.” NBER Working Paper No. 26156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topel, Robert. 1991. “Specific Capital, Mobility, and Wages: Wages Rise with Job Seniority.” Journal of Political Economy 99 (1): 145–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valen, Henry, Narud, Hanne Marthe, and Skare, Audun. 2002. “Norway: Party Dominance and Decentralized Decision-Making.” In Party Sovereignty and Citizen Control: Selecting Candidates for Parliamentary Elections in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, eds. Narud, Hanne Marthe, Pedersen, Mogens N., and Valen, Henry, 169–215. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Willumsen, Fredrik. 2011. “Four Essays on Institutions, Rewards and Performance.” PhD diss. University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Wilson, Steven Lloyd, Ringe, Nils, and van Thomme, Jack. 2016. “Policy Leadership and Re-Election in the European Parliament.” Journal of European Public Policy 23 (8): 1158–1179.10.1080/13501763.2016.1186213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Cirone et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Cirone et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 700 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Cirone et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VWFKDG
Link
22
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Seniority-Based Nominations and Political Careers
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Seniority-Based Nominations and Political Careers
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Seniority-Based Nominations and Political Careers
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *