Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-7jw6s Total loading time: 0.237 Render date: 2022-12-06T20:11:15.197Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Social Identity, Electoral Institutions and the Number of Candidates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2010

Abstract

The empirical literature in comparative politics holds that social cleavages affect the number of candidates or parties when electoral institutions are ‘permissive’, but it lacks a theoretical account of the strategic candidate entry and exit decisions that ultimately determine electoral coalitions in plural societies. This article incorporates citizen-candidate social identities into game-theoretic models of electoral competition under plurality and majority-runoff electoral rules, indicating that social group demographics can affect the equilibrium number of candidates, even in non-permissive systems. Under plurality rule, the relationship between social homogeneity and the effective number of candidates is non-monotonic and, contrary to the prevailing Duvergerian intuition, for some demographic configurations even the effective number of candidates cannot be near two. Empirical patterns in cross-national presidential election results are consistent with the theoretical model.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

1 Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties (New York: Wiley, 1954)Google Scholar; Ordeshook, Peter C. and Shvetsova, Olga V., ‘Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude, and the Number of Parties’, American Journal of Political Science, 38 (1994), 100123CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Amorim Neto, Octavio and Cox, Gary W., ‘Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties’, American Journal of Political Science, 41 (1997), 149174CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chhibber, Pradeep and Kollman, Ken, The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Britain, Canada, India, and the United States (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Roberts Clark, William and Golder, Matthew, ‘The Sociological and Institutional Determinants of Party Systems Around the World’, Comparative Political Studies, 39 (2006), 679708Google Scholar; Golder, Matthew, ‘Presidential Coattails and Legislative Fragmentation’, American Journal of Political Science, 50 (2006), 3448CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Lazarsfeld, Paul, Berelson, Bernard and Gaudet, Hazel, The People’s Choice (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944)Google Scholar; Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Miller, Warren and Stokes, Donald, The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960)Google Scholar; Martin Lipset, Seymour and Rokkan, Stein, ‘Cleavage Structure, Party Systems and Voter Alignments’, in Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan, eds, Party Systems and Voter Alignments (New York: The Free Press, 1967), pp. 164Google Scholar.

3 See, for example, Bates, Robert H., ‘Ethnic Competition and Modernization in Contemporary Africa’, Comparative Political Studies, 6 (1974), 457484CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rabushka, Alvin and Shepsle, Kenneth, Politics in Plural Societies (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1972)Google Scholar; Chandra, Kanchan, Why Ethnic Parties Succeed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

4 See, for example, Horowitz, Donald, Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).Google Scholar

5 Akerlof, George and Kranton, Rachel, ‘Economics and Identity’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (2000), 715753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 We therefore take the position that individuals internalize relevant group prescriptions, and that the identity issues in question are therefore psychological in nature rather than a result of external enforcement.

7 Tajfel, Henri and Turner, John, ‘An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict’, in William G. Austin and Stephen Worchel, eds, The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Monterey, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1979), pp. 3347Google Scholar; Tajfel, Henri and Turner, John, ‘The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior’, in Stephen Worchel and William G. Austin, eds, Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1986), pp. 724Google Scholar; Turner, John C., ‘Social Identification and Psychological Group Formation’, in Henri Tajfel, ed., The Social Dimension: European Developments in Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 518540CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tajfel, Henri, Human Groups and Social Categories (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

8 Obviously, the relevant social categories (T) for political competition in the real world are in part endogenous and a matter for contestation. This article takes a given set of politically relevant identities and examines how demographic characteristics and institutional rules interact to determine salient features of the party system.

9 Osborne, Martin J. and Slivinski, Al, ‘A Model of Political Competition with Citizen-Candidates’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111 (1996), 6596CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Besley, Timothy and Coate, Stephen, ‘An Economic Model of Representative Democracy’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (1997), 85114CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 This assumption, by which the definitions of salient social groups are exogenous and clearly defined, is nonetheless consistent with the main claim of constructivist scholars of ethnicity. Although social identity categories are clearly constructed, they are often persistent and difficult to reconstruct, particularly over the relatively short time-frames of a single election, as examined here. See, e.g., discussions in Van Evera, Stephen, ‘Primordialism Lives!’, Newsletter of the Organized Section in Comparative Politics of the American Political Science Association, 12 (2001), 2022Google Scholar, and Darden, Keith, ‘A First Mover Advantage in National Culture: Mass Schooling and the Origins of Nationalism in the USSR’ (Yale University Working Paper, 2004)Google Scholar. Obviously, in some contexts, treating social groups as exogenous and clearly defined will not be warranted, but, for many polities, the social groups salient for electoral competition remain stable over substantial periods of time consistent with our assumptions.

11 One possible line of future research is to consider other possible sources of lexicographic preferences over the social identity of political representatives. The assumption of lexicographic preferences drives the key results in the model, and so an alternative account of why voters and candidates have these preferences would provide an alternative mechanism to social identity concerns for the key theoretical and empirical results in this article.

12 Dickson, Eric and Scheve, Kenneth, ‘Social Identity, Political Speech, and Electoral Competition’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 18 (2006), 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Note that kj need not actually be infinite for our results to hold. Instead, what is required for many of our key findings is that kj simply be sufficiently large that identity concerns trump individualistic motivations, so that individual citizens do not act against the group. Precisely how large kj would need to be varies for different propositions in this article; in many cases, it would require additional assumptions about the distribution of policy preferences to characterize the minimum value. This would reduce the generality of the model, and offer a substantial complication without adding much insight, so we simply proceed by assuming kj to be sufficiently large that preferences are effectively lexicographic.

14 Osborne, and Slivinski, , ‘A Model of Political Competition with Citizen-Candidates’.Google Scholar

15 Osborne, and Slivinski, , ‘A Model of Political Competition with Citizen-Candidates’.Google Scholar

16 The remainder of the proofs of the propositions are available as Supplementary Materials on the website <journals.cambridge.org/jps>.

17 Duverger, , Political Parties.Google Scholar

18 Note that other works suggesting exceptions to the prediction of two-candidate elections under plurality rule have typically arrived at this result in a setting with multiple districts with heterogeneous preferences. See, for example, Morelli, Massimo, ‘Party Formation and Policy Outcomes under Different Electoral Systems’, Review of Economic Studies, 71 (2004), 829853CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Callander, Steven, ‘Electoral Competition in Heterogeneous Districts’, Journal of Political Economy, 113 (2005), 11161145CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Our result identifies a possible set of exceptions in a single district and is a function of divisions within groups in society rather than in differences across districts.

19 Osborne, and Slivinski, , ‘A Model of Political Competition with Citizen-Candidates’.Google Scholar

20 We are less optimistic about using legislative elections to evaluate the model empirically. Legislative contests under plurality and majority-runoff rules typically take place in multiple geographical districts whose demographic compositions vary from the nation as a whole and from one another but the policy-making function of the legislature depends on coalitions at the national level. Consequently, how entry and exit decisions are determined in these elections is likely to depend on considerations at the district and national level and thus departs substantially from our model.

21 For many values of A, multiple equilibria exist and multiple values of ENPRES are feasible. Because there is no obvious a priori principle for selecting equilibria here, the model cannot in general predict specific values of ENPRES for a specific case. The hypotheses reflect reasonable possibilities for what overall empirical patterns can be expected to look like given the logic of the model and the intuitions contained within Figures 1 and 2.

22 Alesina, Alberto, Devleeschauwer, Arnaud, Easterly, William, Kurlat, Sergio and Wacziarg, Romain, ‘Fractionalization’, Journal of Economic Growth, 8 (2003), 155194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Golder, Matt, ‘Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946–2000’, Electoral Studies, 24 (2005), 103121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Countries with a fused vote for presidential and legislative elections were not included in the sample.

25 Cox, Gary, Making Votes Count (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 This operationalization assumes that the two largest groups determine the key strategic dynamics in electoral coalition formation. This assumption is of course more plausible: the larger the proportion of citzens that belong to the two largest groups. Below, we discuss ways to incorporate this idea into our empirical analysis. As we discuss in the conclusion, a potentially interesting extension of our theoretical model is to expand the analysis to three or more social groups.

27 Our cross-sectional sample of elections comes from forty-nine countries, twenty-three of which are presidential regimes. The mean (standard deviation) for ENPRES is 3.132 (1.259), for Runoff is 0.714 (0.456), for A is 0.806 (0.156), and for AGT2/3 is 0.796 (0.407). For comparison to previous studies using standard ethnic fractionalization measures, the mean fractionalization score for this sample is 0.410 with a standard deviation of 0.258. The summary statistics for the pooled sample of 101 elections, of which fifty-one are presidential regimes, are extremely similar.

28 Ordeshook, and Shvetsova, , ‘Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude, and the Number of Parties’Google Scholar; Neto, and Cox, , ‘Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties’Google Scholar; Clark, and Golder, , ‘The Sociological and Institutional Determinants of Party Systems Around the World’Google Scholar; Golder, , ‘Presidential Coattails and Legislative Fragmentation’Google Scholar.

29 See specifically Golder, , ‘Presidential Coattails and Legislative Fragmentation’, p. 43Google Scholar, Equation 2. The important difference is that our measure of social heterogeneity derived from our model is increasing in homogeneity while Golder’s is increasing in heterogeneity. Consequently, the expected signs of the coefficients must be appropriately adjusted.

30 It might be more precise to say that the existing literature’s expectation is that β 2 ⩽ 0. This possibility does not change the contrast with our model discussed below.

31 The exception to this claim is that for the pooled 1990s sample of presidential regimes, there is essentially no difference in variation explained between the specification using A and the specification using the A greater than two-thirds variable.

32 For the same interval, the differences were quite similar for the cross-sectional presidential regime sample (1.20 with a t-statistic of 2.13 for plurality systems and −0.675 with a t-statistic of −1.02 for majority-runoff rule). Varying the interval from [0.62, 0.72] to [0.52, 0.82] yields similar results in that there is a positive difference evident for plurality rule but not for majority runoff.

33 Note that it is not necessary for the analysis to yield similar results across all dimensions of identity for our theory to provide insight, as it may simply be that, on average, ethnicity is the more important social identity for politics. Such a result is consistent with the previous literature’s emphasis on ethnic heterogeneity.

34 Most obviously, any theory that provides a convincing explanation for lexicographic preferences over the social group membership of candidates would generate the same predictions as our model.

Supplementary material: File

Dickson and Scheve supplementary material

Dickson and Scheve supplementary material

Download Dickson and Scheve supplementary material(File)
File 563 KB
17
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.

Social Identity, Electoral Institutions and the Number of Candidates
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.

Social Identity, Electoral Institutions and the Number of Candidates
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.

Social Identity, Electoral Institutions and the Number of Candidates
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? *