Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-vmftn Total loading time: 0.367 Render date: 2023-02-01T22:16:17.366Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

The Role of Rules in Representation: Group Membership and Electoral Incentives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

Abstract

Existing research shows that the election of members of previously underrepresented groups can have significant consequences for policymaking. Yet, quotas, reserved seats, communal rolls, and race-conscious districting make it difficult to distinguish whether it is group membership, electoral incentives, or a combination of the two that matters. It is argued here that lawmakers who are members of underrepresented groups will stand out as defenders of their group’s interests only when electoral rules incentivize them to do so. This is demonstrated empirically using data from New Zealand, showing that Māori Members of Parliament systematically vary in the extent to which they represent their ethnic group as a function of the three different sets of rules under which they were elected.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 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.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis (emails: crisp@wustl.edu; betul.demirkaya@wustl.edu; clmillian@gmail.com), except Schwindt-Bayer, who is at the Department of Political Science, Rice University (email: schwindt@rice.edu).The authors would like to thank Megan Linquiti and the other members of the Democratic Institutions Research Team (D.I.R.T.) for their research assistance, and Matt Gabel and Bill Mishler for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. Data replication sets available at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123415000691. Replication data and code, as well as appendices not for print publication, are available at http://pages.wustl.edu/crisp.

References

Barker, Fiona, and McLeay, Elizabeth. 2000. How Much Change? An Analysis of the Initial Impact of Proportional Representation on the New Zealand Party System. Party Politics 6 (2):131154.Google Scholar
Barnes, Tiffany D. 2012. Gender and Legislative Preferences: Evidence from the Argentine Provinces. Politics & Gender 8 (4):483507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battle, Martin. 2011. Second-Class Representatives or Work Horses? Committee Assignments and Electoral Incentives in the Scottish Parliament. Parliamentary Affairs 64 (3):494512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batto, Nathan F. 2012. Differing Mandates and Party Loyalty in Mixed-Member Systems: Taiwan as a Baseline Case. Electoral Studies 38 (2):384392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, Julian, Giger, Nathalie, and Rosset, Jan. 2015. Mind the Gap: Do Proportional Electoral Systems Foster a More Equal Representation of Women and Men, Poor and Rich? International Political Science Review 36 (1):7898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, Georgina. 2010. Māori in General Seats. Pp. 201212 in Māori and Parliament: Diverse Strategies and Compromises, edited by Maria Bargh. Wellington: Huia Publishers.Google Scholar
Bird, Karen. 2014. Ethnic Quotas and Ethnic Representation Worldwide. International Political Science Review 35 (1):1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohrer, Robet E., and Krutz, Glen S.. 2004. Duverger and Devolution: A Note on the Effects of New Electoral Rules in the UK. Electoral Studies 23 (2):315327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohrer, Robet E., and Krutz, Glen S.. 2005. The Devolved Party Systems of the United Kingdom: Sub-National Variation from the National Model. Party Politics 11 (6):654673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A. 2006. The Behavior and Success of Latino Legislators: Evidence from the States. Social Science Quarterly 87 (5):11361157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A., and Haynie, Kerry L.. 1999. Agenda Setting and Legislative Success in State Legislatures: The Effects of Gender and Race. Journal of Politics 61 (3):658679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, Simon. 2010. Diversity Enriches the View. Pp. 213217 in Māori and Parliament: Diverse Strategies and Compromises, edited by Maria and Bargh. Wellington: Huia Publishers.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, and Medina, Jose Manuel Abal. 2002. Institutional Gamblers: Majoritarian Representation, Electoral Uncertainty, and the Coalitional Costs of Mexico’s Hybrid Electoral System. Electoral Studies 21 (3):453471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, and Hellwig, Timothy. 2011. Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives under Different Electoral Systems. American Journal of Political Science 55 (1):2741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M. 2005. Report for President Eduardo Rodriguez Vetlze Regarding Issues of Electoral and Constitutional Reform Based on Meetings of 8–11 August, La Paz, Bolivia. (Unpublished.)Google Scholar
Carey, John M., and Shugart, Matthew Soberg. 1995. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies 14 (4):417439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chattopadhyay, R., and Duflo, Esther. 2004. Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India. Econometrica 72 (5):14091443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, Sarah. 2008. Women and British Party Politics: Descriptive, Substantive and Symbolic Representation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clark, Jennifer Hayes, and Caro, Veronica. 2013. Multimember Districts and the Substantive Representation of Women: An Analysis of Legislative Cosponsorship Networks. Politics & Gender 9 (1):130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1990. Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems. American Journal of Political Science 34 (4):903935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darcy, Robert, Welch, Susan, and Clark, Janet. 1994. Women, Elections, & Representation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Denemark, David. 2001. Choosing MMP in New Zealand: Explaining the 1993 Electoral Reform. Pp. 7095 in Mixed Members Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?, edited by Matthew S. Shugartand Martin P. Wattenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dow, Jay K. 2011. Party-System Extremism in Majoritarian and Proportional Electoral Systems. British Journal of Political Science 41 (2):341361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Federico. 2004a. Electoral Coordination and the Strategic Desertion of Strong Parties in Compensatory Mixed Systems with Negative Vote Transfers. Electoral Studies 23 (3):391413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Federico. 2004b. Frogs, Mice, and Mixed Member Electoral Institutions: Party Discipline in the XIV Italian Chamber of Deputies. Journal of Legislative Studies 10 (4):1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gay, Claudine. 2007. Legislating without Constraints: The Effect of Minority Districting on Legislators’ Responsiveness to Constituency Preferences. Journal of Politics 69 (2):442456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haspel, Moshe, Remington, Thomas F., and Smith, Steven S.. 1998. Electoral Institutions and Party Cohesion in the Russian Duma. Journal of Politics 60 (2):417439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennl, Annika, and Kaiser, André. 2008. Ticket Balancing in Mixed-Member Proportional Systems: Comparing Sub-National Elections in Germany. Electoral Studies 27 (2):321336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herron, Erik S., and Nishikawa, Misa. 2001. Contamination Effects and the Number of Parties in Mixed-Superposition Electoral Systems. Electoral Studies 20 (1):6386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juenke, Eric Gonzalez, and Preuhs, Robert R.. 2012. Irreplaceable Legislators? Rethinking Minority Representatives in the New Century. American Journal of Political Science 56 (3):705715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathlene, Lyn. 1998. In a Different Voice: Women and the Policy Process. Pp. 188202 in Women and Elective Office: Past, Present and Future, edited by S. Thomas and C. Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kerevel, Yann. 2010. The Legislative Consequences of Mexico’s Mixed-Member Electoral System, 2000–2009. Electoral Studies 29 (4):691703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Ronald F., and Marian, Cosmin Gabriel. 2012. Minority Representation and Reserved Legislative Seats in Romania. East European Politics & Societies 26 (3):561588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostadinova, Tatiana. 2007. Ethnic and Women’s Representation under Mixed Election Systems. Electoral Studies 26 (2):418431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, Thomas C. 2014. Tensions between Constituency and Regional Members of the Scottish Parliament under Mixed-Member Proportional Representation: A Failure of the New Politics. Parliamentary Affairs 67 (2):351370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matland, Richard E. 1993. Institutional Variables Affecting Female Representation in National Legislatures: The Case of Norway. Journal of Politics 55 (3):737755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J., Juenke, Eric Gonzalez, Wrinkle, Robert D. and Polinard, J. L.. 2005. Structural Choices and Representational Biases: The Post-Election Color of Representation. American Journal of Political Science 49 (4):758768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minta, Michael D. 2009. Legislative Oversight and the Substantive Representation of Black and Latino Interests in Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34 (2):193218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Chris T. 2005. Black Substantive Representation in State Legislatures from 1971–1994. Social Science Quarterly 86 (4):779791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pande, Rohini. 2003. Can Mandated Political Representation Increase Policy Influence for Disadvantaged Minorities? Theory and Evidence from India. American Economic Review 93 (4):11321151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paxton, Pamela, Hughes, Melanie M., and Painter, Matthew A.. 2010. Growth in Women’s Political Representation: A Longitudinal Exploration of Democracy, Electoral System and Gender Quotas. European Journal of Political Research 49 (1):2552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekkanen, Robert, Nyblade, Benjamin, and Krauss, Ellis S.. 2006. Electoral Incentives in Mixed-Member Systems: Party, Posts, and Zombie Politicians in Japan. American Political Science Review 100 (2):183193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Preuhs, Robert R. 2006. The Conditional Effects of Minority Descriptive Representation: Black Legislators and Policy Influence in the American States. Journal of Politics 68 (3):585599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, Andrew. 2006. Electoral Systems and the Protection and Participation of Minorities. London: Minority Rights Group International.Google Scholar
Saalfeld, Thomas. 2011. Parliamentary Questions as Instruments of Substantive Representation: Visible Minorities in the UK House of Commons, 2005–2010. Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (3):271289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheiner, Ethan. 2008. Does Electoral System Reform Work? Electoral System Lessons from the Reforms of the 1990s. Annual Review of Political Science 11:161181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. 2010. Political Power and Women’s Representation in Latin America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S., and Wattenberg, Martin P.. 2001. Mixed Member Electoral Systems: A Definition and Typology. Pp. 924 in Mixed Members Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?, edited by Matthew S. Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spindler, Rakura. 2009. Members’ Bills in the New Zealand Parliament. Political Science 61 (1):5179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, Mamari. 2010. ‘Tame Kākā’ Still? Māori Members and the Use of Māori Language in the New Zealand House of Representatives. Law Text Culture 14 (1):220246.Google Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Sue. 1994. How Women Legislate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Togeby, Lise. 2008. The Political Representation of Ethnic Minorities Denmark as a Deviant Case. Party Politics 14 (3):325343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Leigh J. 1998. Second-Class MPs? New Zealand’s Adaptation to Mixed-Member Parliamentary Representation. Political Science 49 (2):125152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Walter. 2009. Latino Representation on Congressional Websites. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34 (3):427448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Walter Clark. 2010. Descriptive Representation and Latino Interest Bill Sponsorship in Congress. Social Science Quarterly 91 (4):10431062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zittel, Thomas, and Gschwend, Thomas. 2008. Individualized Constituency Campaigns and Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Candidates in the 2005 German Elections. West European Politics 31 (5):9781003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Crisp et al Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Crisp supplementary material

Crisp supplementary material 1

Download Crisp supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 112 KB
8
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.

The Role of Rules in Representation: Group Membership and Electoral Incentives
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.

The Role of Rules in Representation: Group Membership and Electoral Incentives
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.

The Role of Rules in Representation: Group Membership and Electoral Incentives
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? *