Quinn, Thomas 2017. Third-Party Strategy under Plurality Rule: The British Liberal Democrats and the New Zealand Social Credit Party. Political Studies, Vol. 65, Issue. 3, p. 740.
Margulies, Ben 2016. Liberal party performance when rival parties shift position on the left-right axis. Comparative European Politics, Vol. 14, Issue. 6, p. 802.
QUINN, THOMAS 2016. Throwing the rascals out? Problems of accountability in two-party systems. European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 55, Issue. 1, p. 120.
Clarke, Harold Whiteley, Paul Borges, Walter Sanders, David and Stewart, Marianne 2016. Modelling the dynamics of support for a right-wing populist party: the case of UKIP. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, Vol. 26, Issue. 2, p. 135.
Green, Jane 2015. Party and voter incentives at the crowded centre of British politics. Party Politics, Vol. 21, Issue. 1, p. 80.
Margulies, William 2015. Liberal party performance and polarisation. Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 50, Issue. 2, p. 241.
McDonald, Michael D. and Budge, Ian 2014. Getting it (approximately) right (and center and left!): Reliability and uncertainty estimates for the comparative manifesto data. Electoral Studies, Vol. 35, p. 67.
Drometer, Marcus and Rincke, Johannes 2014. Electoral competition and endogenous barriers to entry. European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 34, p. 253.
Ezrow, Lawrence Homola, Jonathan and Tavits, Margit 2014. When Extremism Pays: Policy Positions, Voter Certainty, and Party Support in Postcommunist Europe. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 76, Issue. 2, p. 535.
Ezrow, Lawrence Tavits, Margit and Homola, Jonathan 2014. Voter Polarization, Strength of Partisanship, and Support for Extremist Parties. Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 47, Issue. 11, p. 1558.
Quinn, Thomas 2013. From Two-Partism to Alternating Predominance: The Changing UK Party System, 1950–2010. Political Studies, Vol. 61, Issue. 2, p. 378.
Adams, James 2012. Causes and Electoral Consequences of Party Policy Shifts in Multiparty Elections: Theoretical Results and Empirical Evidence. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 15, Issue. 1, p. 401.
Adams, James De Vries, Catherine E. and Leiter, Debra 2012. Subconstituency Reactions to Elite Depolarization in the Netherlands: An Analysis of the Dutch Public's Policy Beliefs and Partisan Loyalties, 1986–98. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 42, Issue. 01, p. 81.
Adams, James Green, Jane and Milazzo, Caitlin 2012. Who moves? Elite and mass-level depolarization in Britain, 1987–2001. Electoral Studies, Vol. 31, Issue. 4, p. 643.
Merrill, Samuel Grofman, Bernard and Brunell, Thomas L. 2011. Do British Party Politics Exhibit Cycles?. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, Issue. 01, p. 33.
British elections exhibit two patterns contrary to expectations deriving from Duverger and Downs: centrist third parties (Liberals and their successors) win a large vote share; and the two major parties often espouse highly divergent policies. This article explores relations between the Liberal vote and left–right scores of the Labour and Conservative manifestos in the light of two hypotheses: the vacated centre posits that Liberals receive more votes when major parties diverge; the occupied centre proposes a lagged effect in which major parties diverge farther after Liberals do well in the preceding election. Data from elections since 1945 confirm the vacated-centre hypothesis, with Liberals benefiting about equally when the major parties diverge to the left and right, respectively. The results also support the occupied-centre hypothesis for Conservative party positions, but not for Labour’s. After considering explanations for this asymmetry, we identify historical events associated with turning points that our data reveal in post-war British politics.
1 The centrist parties discussed in this article, and the elections they contested in the period analysed, are the Liberal party (1945–79), the Alliance of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party (1983 and 1987), and the Liberal Democratic party (1992 onward). The Liberals and Social Democrats maintained separate organizations but campaigned under an electoral pact, so their candidates did not oppose each other in any constituency. In 1988, the Liberals and SDP merged to form the Social and Liberal Democrats. In 1990, the merged party simplified its name to Liberal Democrats. For a definitive history of the SDP and the merger, see Crewe, Ivor and King, Anthony, SDP: The Life and Death of the Social Democratic Party (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). To avoid awkward constructions, we use ‘Liberals’ and ‘Liberal vote’ as generic terms, employing the later names of the centrist party or parties only when the context is restricted to the periods of their existence.
2 See also the Appendix for numerical data. Vote shares throughout the article are for Great Britain only. Northern Ireland, which usually records little more than 2 per cent of the overall United Kingdom vote, has a separate party system. Since 1974, the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties have generally not offered candidates there. Unless otherwise noted, electoral data through 1999 in this article are drawn from Rallings, Colin and Thrasher, Michael, British Electoral Facts, 1832–1999 (Aldershot, Surrey: Ashgate, 2000). Data for 2001 and 2005 are from the website of the UK Electoral Commission, http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/election-data/index.cfm. Manifesto scores were provided by Eric Tannenbaum and Judith Bara of the Comparative Manifesto Project. Scores for 1945–97 are also available on a CD included with Budge, Ian, Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith and Tanenbaum, Eric, Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). The measures are described more fully below.
3 Douglas, Roy, Liberals: The History of the Liberal and Liberal Democrat Parties (London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005), pp. 281–282. Previously, after the February 1974 election, Labour had formed a minority government with 301 seats, seventeen short of a majority. However, at that time, the Liberals, with fourteen MPs, did not by themselves hold the balance of power. An absolute majority would have required help from the seven MPs of the Scottish National Party (SNP). The Labour government called a new election in October 1974, from which it emerged with an absolute majority of 319 seats. The subsequent Lib–Lab pact of 1977–78 became necessary after Labour lost its majority due to defections and by-election defeats.
4 Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties (New York: Wiley, 1954); Riker, William H., ‘The Two-Party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science’, American Political Science Review, 76 (1982), 753–766.
5 Cox, Gary W., Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Chhibber, Pradeep K. and Kollman, Ken, The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2004).
6 Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1957).
7 Arend Lijphart’s dichtomization of ‘majoritarian’ and ‘consensus’ democracies causes him and many other political scientists to neglect the important differences between majority and plurality rules. See, e.g., Lijphart, , Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999). For a perspective that emphasizes the latter distinction, see Nagel, Jack H., ‘Expanding the Spectrum of Democracies’, in Democracy and Institutions: A Festschrift for Arend Lijphart, edited by Markus Crepaz, Thomas Koelble and David Wilsford (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000), pp. 113–128.
8 These results were established through computer simulations by Merrill, Samuel, Making Multicandidate Elections More Democratic (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988) and analytically by Cox, Gary, ‘Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems’, American Journal of Political Science, 34 (1990), 903–935.
9 Cox, , Making Votes Count, esp. pp. 231–237.
10 Hazan, Reuven V., Centre Parties: Polarization and Competition in European Parliamentary Democracies (London: Pinter, 1997).
11 Bingham, Powell G. Jr, Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 240–246; Powell, and Vanberg, Georg S., ‘Election Laws, Disproportionality and Median Correspondence: Implications for Two Visions of Democracy’, British Journal of Political Science, 30 (2000), 383–411.
12 McDonald, Michael D. and Budge, Ian, Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 124–130; McDonald, , Mendes, Silvia M. and Budge, , ‘What Are Elections For?’ British Journal of Political Science, 34 (2004), 1–26. Despite frequent failure of governments to represent the median voter, public expenditures in Britain were nevertheless fairly responsive to changes in public preference over the 1978–95 time period; Soroka, Stuart N. and Wlezien, Christopher, ‘Opinion-Policy Dynamics: Public Preferences and Public Expenditures in the United Kingdom’, British Journal of Political Science, 35 (2005), 665–689.
13 Cf. Hazan, Centre Parties, pp. 158–60.
14 For alternative approaches to explaining the dynamics of party ideologies as measured by manifesto scores, see the substantial literature that begins with Budge, Ian, ‘A New Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology, and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally’, British Journal of Political Science, 24 (1994), 443–467. Recent articles in this tradition include Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence and Glasgow, Garrett, ‘Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to Past Election Results?’, British Journal of Political Science, 34 (2004), 589–610; and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep, ‘Timely Decisions: The Effects of Past National Elections on Party Policy Change’, Journal of Politics, 71 (2009), pp. 238–248. Tests in this literature are based on pooled cross-national data; and do not involve hypotheses that relate parties’ positions to the votes won by a competing party in the preceding election.
15 For detailed accounts of how the scale is constructed, see Laver, M. J. and Budge, Ian, eds, Party Policy and Government Coalitions (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992), chap. 2; Klingemann, Hans-Dieter et al. , Parties, Policies, and Democracy (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1994), chap. 3; and especially Budge et al., Mapping Policy Preferences.
16 For examples, see Budge, Ian, ‘Party Policy and Ideology: Reversing the 1950s?’, in Geoffrey Evans and Pippa Norris, eds, Critical Elections: British Parties and Voters in Long-Term Perspective (London: Sage, 1999), pp. 1–22; Budge, Ian, Crewe, Ivor, McKay, David and Newton, Ken, The New British Politics (Harlow, Herts.: Addison Wesley Longman, 1998), p. 410; Norris, Pippa, Electoral Change since 1945 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), p. 158; and Bara, Judith, ‘The 2005 Manifestos: A Sense of ‘Déjà vu’?’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 16 (2006), 265–281.
17 Some of these results are reported below; others are available upon request.
18 An examination of Figure 3 shows that moves by a major party caused all of these anomalies, except in 1964 when the Liberals shifted sharply but temporarily to the left.
19 This was suggested by a reviewer, to whom we are most grateful.
20 Russell, Andrew and Fieldhouse, Edward, Neither Left nor Right? The Liberal Democrats and the Electorate (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005), pp. 90–93.
21 The pattern is unchanged when the lagged Liberal vote is included in the equation – its effect is small and insignificant (b = 0.09; s.e. = 0.25). Full-fledged error correction modelling shows further that the effects of the current (time t) changes in Labour and Conservative positions are effects of the corresponding lagged (time t−1) positions. This is important because it strongly suggests that party positions Granger-cause the Liberal vote.
22 The pattern is robust to the inclusion of other variables. Following the suggestions of one anonymous referee, we included the interest rate (following the model of Sanders, David, ‘Economic Performance, Management Competence and the Outcome of the Next General Election’, Political Studies, 44 (1996), 203–231, and doing so did not significantly alter the effects of Labour-Liberal and Conservative-Liberal distance. To probe the nature of voter response, we included lagged changes in our distance measures, and this made little difference to the results as well.
23 In these equations, we use the Labour and Conservative left–right scores alone, rather than the differences between them and the Liberal score as in Equation 1. At the beginning of the campaign for election t, each major party controls its own manifesto, but probably cannot calibrate it against the Liberal manifesto, which is published almost simultaneously. For those who would question this premise, we also estimated versions of Equations 3 and 4 using algebraic differences between the major-party and Liberal scores. The results are virtually the same for Equation 3 and far weaker for Equation 4.
24 The effect also holds when the equation includes the lagged Conservative position, the coefficient for which is insignificant (b = 0.27; s.e. = 0.18).
25 In contrast, the occupied-centre relation between the Liberal vote and the Conservative left–right position remained strong during 1966–87, with a correlation of 0.74 (p = 0.06).
26 Adams, James and Merrill, Samuel III, ‘Why Small, Centrist Third Parties Motivate Policy Divergence by Major Parties’, American Political Science Review, 100 (2006), 403–417. Their analysis in part seeks to explain results first presented in an early version of this article: Nagel, Jack H., ‘Center-Party Strength and Major-Party Polarization in Britain’ (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, 2001).
27 Here is the regression result:
28 As a referee has pointed out to us, Adams and Merrill implicitly assume a uniform distribution of voters across the ideological spectrum, which seems unlikely. Their hypothesis might be salvaged by positing that voters on the extremes have a greater propensity to defect (to non-voting or fringe parties) in response to policy moves than do supporters of the centrist third party.
29 Rallings, and Thrasher, , British Electoral Facts, 1832–1999, pp. 38–66; UK Electoral Commission web site for 2001 and 2005.
30 The CMP codes for statements in favour of decentralization and centralization, but does not include them in the left–right scale (Bara, ‘The 2005 Manifestos,’ Appendix 1).
31 Webb, Paul, ‘The Continuing Advance of the Minor Parties’, in Pippa Norris and Christopher Wlezien, eds, Britain Votes 2005 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 101–119, at p. 114.
32 Curtice, John and Steed, Michael, ‘Appendix 2: The Results Analysed’, in David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh, The British General Election of 1997 (Basingstoke, Hants.: Macmillan, 1997), pp. 295–325, at p. 305. Curtice and Steed’s analysis of 1997 results suggests that Goldsmith’s campaign had less impact on the Conservatives than was expected.
33 Norton, , ‘The Conservative Party: The Politics of Panic,’ in John Bartle and Anthony King, eds, Britain at the Polls 2005 (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2006), pp. 31–53, at p. 45. On the minor parties in 2005, see Webb, ‘The Continuing Advance of the Minor Parties’.
34 Although we use a simple linear specification in Equation 4, there is an even closer fit to a logarithmic model.
35 We calculated V*lib by dividing the Liberals’ vote percentage in Great Britain, Vlib, by the proportion of British constituencies in which a Liberal candidate stood. Owing to variations in constituencies’ population and voter turnout, slightly different results would be obtained by the more laborious method of actually averaging the Liberal vote percentage across the constituencies their candidates contested.
36 We say ‘roughly’ because tactical voting (motivated by fear of ‘wasting’ one’s vote) causes the average vote to give an imperfect measure of popular support for the Liberals.
37 Because the analytic relation is multiplicative (Vlib = Clib * V*lib), we also estimated a logarithmic version of Equation 5. The results are qualitatively similar.
38 Adams, and Merrill, (‘Why Small, Centrist Third Parties Motivate Policy Divergence by Major Parties’, pp. 411–412) suggest that their policy divergence result can explain the impact of the number of Liberal candidates on major-party polarization, but they do not consider the asymmetry of its impact on Conservatives and Labour.
39 For an account of US political history that similarly depends on the influence of activists and changes in the composition of activist coalitions within parties over an extended time period, see Miller, Gary and Schofield, Norman, ‘The Transformation of the Republican and Democratic Party Coalitions in the U.S.’, Perspectives on Politics, 6 (2008), 433–450; Schofield, Norman and Miller, Gary, ‘Elections and Activist Coalitions in the United States’, American Journal of Political Science, 51 (2007), 518–531; and Schofield, Norman, Miller, Gary and Martin, Andrew, ‘Critical Elections and Political Realignments in the USA – 1860–2000’, Political Studies, 51 (2003), 217–540. Their model of US politics is two-dimensional, whereas we explicitly model only one dimension in British politics, though we do recognize the influence of cross-cutting allegiances and issues.
40 Fieldhouse, and Russell, , Neither Left nor Right? p. 90; Alt, James, Crewe, Ivor and Särlvik, Bo, ‘Angels in Plastic: The Liberal Surge in 1974’, Political Studies, 25 (1977), 343–368; Curtice, John, ‘Who Votes for the Centre Now?’ in Don MacIver, ed., The Liberal Democrats (London: Prentice Hall, 1996), pp. 191–204; Walker, David, ‘The strange case of the Lib Dems’, Guardian, 18 September 2000.
41 Cyr, Arthur, Liberal Party Politics in Britain (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1977), p. 76. Cyr emphasizes the role of Britain’s relatively rigid class structure in the twentieth-century decline of the Liberal party. ‘Liberal co-operation with the Labour Party and trade union elements was always feeble and reluctantly undertaken … The Liberals were doubly injured by the class factor … First, they rejected class as a doctrinal source of unity … [and] drew emotional and intellectual sustenance from opposition to class. Second, however, Liberals proved to be most class-conscious in their rejection of working-class allies as equal partners … The Liberals were hurt by their class discrimination while earning no profit from class solidarity’(Liberal Party Politics in Britain, pp. 52, 77). He later notes that Liberals of the 1970s ‘like the old Liberals, are distinctly class-conscious, albeit unintentionally’, p. 236.
42 Webb, P.D., ‘The United Kingdom’, in Richard S. Katz and Peter Mair, eds, Party Organizations: A Data Handbook on Party Organizations in Western Democracies, 1960–90 (London: Sage Publications, 1992), pp. 837–870, at p. 847.
43 See Mair, Peter and van Biezen, Ingrid, ’Party Membership in Twenty European Democracies, 1980–2000.’ Party Politics, 7 (2001), 5–21.
44 Our account of Conservative party decision procedures is indebted to Fisher, Justin, ‘Political Parties: Organisational Change and Intra Party Democracy,’ in Fisher, Justin, Denver, David and Benyon, John eds, Central Debates in British Politics (Harlow, Herts.: Longman, 2002), pp. 135–156.
45 Fisher, , ‘Political Parties’, p. 137.
46 Moss, Stephen, ‘I did not call Tony Blair a smarmy git’, Guardian, 21 September 2001, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/bookshelf/story/0,,644724,00.html (accessed 14 December 2007).
47 Rallings, and Thrasher, , British Electoral Facts, 1832–1999, pp. 34, 37.
48 Joyce, Peter, Realignment of the Left? A History of the Relationship between the Liberal Democrat and Labour Parties (London: Macmillan, 1999), pp. 97–99; Cook, Chris, A Short History of the Liberal Party 1900–1997, 5th edn (London: Macmillan, 1998), pp. 126–129. The Nuffield study of 1945 notes that Liberals complained bitterly about Churchill’s decision to hold the election in July rather than in the autumn, when they could have been better prepared; see McCallum, R. B. and Readman, Alison, The British General Election of 1945 (London: Oxford University Press, 1947), pp. 15, 69.
49 In Equation 1, the 1951 Liberal vote produces the second largest negative residual in the entire postwar period, slightly below 1992.
50 Cook, , Short History of the Liberal Party, p. 133; Steed, Michael, ‘The Liberal Tradition’, in Don MacIver, ed., The Liberal Democrats (London: Prentice-Hall, 1996), pp. 41–61, at p. 57. On Liberals as a party of the Celtic, non-conformist and rural periphery, see Tregidga, Garry, The Liberal Party in South-West Britain Since 1918: Political Decline, Dormancy, and Rebirth (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2000).
51 Steed, , ‘The Liberal Tradition’, p. 58. Fieldhouse and Russell find that the Liberals were dependent on the same ‘heartlands’ from 1929 until 1992. Beginning in 1997, however, they began to capture more seats in areas outside those traditional bailiwicks (see Russell, and Fieldhouse, , Neither Left Nor Right? chap. 7).
52 This is consistent with the model of Taagepera and Grofman, who speculate that the number of parties equals the number of issue dimensions plus one; thus to the extent Britain has a three-party system, its party politics should be shaped by two significant dimensions (Taagepera, Rein and Grofman, Bernard, ‘Rethinking Duverger’s Law: Predicting the Effective Number of Parties in Plurality and PR Systems – Parties Minus Issues Equals One’, European Journal of Political Research, 13 (1985), 341–352). For an analysis of the continuing influence of religious affiliation, behaviour and belief on voters’ choices in 1992, see Kotler-Berkowitz, Lawrence A., ‘Voting Behaviour in Great Britain: A Reassessment’, British Journal of Political Science, 31 (2001), 523–554.
53 Douglas, , Liberals, p. 253.
54 In both elections, the three won their seats over Labour opponents by margins of less than twenty per cent – in most cases, much less. For an invaluable archive of constituency level election results, see Kimber, Richard, British Governments and Elections Since 1945, http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/uktable.htm
55 A History of the Liberal Party in the Twentieth Century (Basingstoke, Hants.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), p. 177. concurs, Douglas: ‘In the unhappy condition of the Liberal party after 1951, [Davies’ acceptance] could have proved the coup de grace.’ Liberals, p. 259.
56 In 1964, the Liberals would be to the left of both major parties, a pattern that did not occur again until 1997 and 2001. From 1969 through 1992, they continuously occupied the middle position.
57 The increase in candidates accounts for most of the rise in the Liberal vote nationally. The party’s average vote share per contested constituency improved only a little, from 15.5 per cent to 17.2 per cent; and it elected just six MPs, the same number as in 1955 and 1951. Cook, , Short History of the Liberal Party, pp. 136–140.
58 Quoted in Cyr, Liberal Party Politics, p. 158.
59 A History of the Liberal Party, pp. 187–188. The reaction to Suez fits what Cyr describes as a longstanding Liberal tradition of ‘taking up an issue of principle in the international field.’ Liberal Party Politics, p. 15.
60 The murder attempt failed, Thorpe denied all allegations, and a jury acquitted him shortly after the election. Nevertheless, Thorpe’s constituents denied him re-election. For his own account of these events, see Thorpe, Jeremy, In My Own Time: Reminiscences of a Liberal Leader (London: Politico’s, 1999), pp. 197–206.
61 Fisher, Stephen D. and Curtice, John, ‘Tactical Unwind? Changes in Party Preference Structure and Tactical Voting in Britain between 2001 and 2005’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 16 (2006), 55–76; data from p. 64.
62 Whiteley, Paul, Stewart, Marianne C., Sanders, David and Clarke, Harold D. , ‘The Issue Agenda and Voting’, in Norris and Wlezien, eds, Britain Votes, pp. 146–161.
63 Quinn, Thomas, ‘The Conservative Party and the “Centre Ground” of British Politics’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18 (2008), 179–199.
64 Liberal parties in Australia and New Zealand established long-term alliances on the centre-right with their countries’ agrarian counterparts of the British Conservatives. Australia’s alternative-vote electoral system enabled its Liberal party to sustain a permanent coalition with the organizationally separate National (formerly Country) party. In New Zealand the United party (successor to the Liberals) merged with Reform in the 1930s to establish the National party, which remains the major party of the centre-right, even though New Zealand replaced FPP elections with PR in the 1990s.
65 New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other centrist leaders explored such a possibility in early 2008.
66 Ashdown, Paddy, ‘We must not allow ourselves to be pushed into reoccupying the ground New Labour has vacated,’ Independent, 13 June 2001.
67 Fisher and Curtice in ‘Tactical Unwind?’ find evidence of increased tactical switching from Conservative to Liberal Democratic in 2005, along with a decline in the previously high levels of Labour to Liberal Democrat switches.
* Department of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania; and Department of Political Science, Temple University, respectively (email: firstname.lastname@example.org, Wlezien@temple.edu). This research began when Nagel visited the University of Essex in 2000. He is grateful to Albert Weale, the then head of the Government Department, and his colleagues for hospitality and stimulation, and to the University of Pennsylvania Research Foundation for financial support. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at Binghamton University in 2008, the University of Sussex in 2007, and at annual meetings of the Public Choice Society in 2003 and the American Political Science Association in 2001. For advice and help along the way, the authors thank James Adams, Regina Baker, Tim Bale, Anthony Barker, Judith Bara, John Bartle, Hugh Berrington, Ian Budge, Todor Enev, Justin Fisher, Stephen Fisher, Jane Green, Anthony King, Hershbinder Mann, Samuel Merrill III, David Sanders, Eric Tannenbaum, Hugh Ward, Albert Weale and Paul Webb. Thanks are also due to Sarah Birch, lead editor at the Journal, and the exceptionally helpful referees.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th April 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.