Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-n7x5d Total loading time: 0.561 Render date: 2021-12-07T23:01:15.546Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Constituency Influence in Parliament

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2009

Stuart Soroka*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Erin Penner*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Kelly Blidook*
Affiliation:
Memorial University of Newfoundland
*
Stuart Soroka, Department of Political Science, McGill University, 855 Sherbrooke St West, Montréal, Québec, CanadaH3A 2T7, stuart.soroka@mcgill.ca.
Erin Penner, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, 2642 Oxford St. (BSMT), Vancouver, British Columbia, CanadaV5K IN3, erin.penner@mcgill.ca.
Kelly Blidook, Department of Political Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Science Building, SN-2042, St. John's, Newfoundland, CanadaA1B 3X9, kblidook@mun.ca.

Abstract

Abstract. “Dyadic representation” has received considerable attention in the US, but much less attention in parliamentary systems where party discipline strongly limits representatives' capacity for individual action. A link between the legislative behaviour of representatives and the preferences of their geographic constituencies may nevertheless exist outside the US, however, particularly in single member plurality systems where the “electoral connection” is strong. This paper tests for evidence of this dyadic relationship in Question Period in the Canadian Parliament, across three policy domains: defense, debt and taxes, and welfare. As anticipated, there is evidence of dyadic representation in Canada. Results are discussed as they pertain to the comparative study of legislative institutions and political representation.

Résumé. La «représentation dyadique» a reçu une attention considérable aux États-Unis, mais elle est beaucoup moins étudiée au sein des démocraties parlementaires où la discipline de parti limite fortement la marge de manœuvre des élus. Malgré tout, le lien entre le comportement politique des élus et les préférences de leurs commettants demeure important ailleurs qu'aux États-Unis, mais particulièrement dans les systèmes électoraux pluralitaires où la «connexion électorale» est forte. Cet article s'intéresse à cette représentation dyadique dans le cadre de la période des questions au Parlement canadien et plus particulièrement pour les trois enjeux suivants : la défense nationale, la politique fiscale et les services sociaux. Tel qu'attendu, la représentation dyadique semble se confirmer au Canada. Les résultats des analyses statistiques sont discutés et apportent un éclairage original sur l'étude comparée des institutions législatives et de la représentation politique.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2009

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

Achen, Christopher H. 1978. “Measuring Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 22: 475510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagnoson, J. Theodore. 1983. “Home Style in New Zealand.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 8 (2): 157–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Cameron and Goodyear-Grant, Elizabeth. 2005. “Conceptions of Political Representation in Canada: An Explanation of Public Opinion.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 38: 1029–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Michael. 1978. “Policy Interests of Provincial Backbenchers and the Effects of Political Ambition.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 3: 629–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Michael M. and Thomas, Paul G.. 1993. “Studying the Canadian Parliament”. Legislative Studies Quarterly 18 (3): 423–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1991. “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Build Up.” American Political Science Review 85 (2): 457–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank and Jones, Bryan. 2003. Policy Dynamics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth and Laver, Michael. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. Routledge Research in Comparative Politics 19. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Robert A. 1989. Elections, Representation, and Congressional Voting Behaviour: The Myth of Constituency Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Blais, André, Gidengil, Elisabeth, Dobrzynska, Agnieszka, Nevitte, Neil and Nadeau, Richard. 2003. “Does the Local Candidate Matter? Candidate Effects in the Canadian Election of 2000.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 657–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, Andre, Gidengil, Elisabeth, Nadeau, Richard and Nevitte, Neil. 2004. Canadian Election Survey, 2000 [Computer file]. Available through the Canadian Opinion Research Archive, http://www.queens.ca/cora.Google Scholar
Blidook, Kelly. N.d. “Exploring the role of ‘legislators’ in Canada: Do Members of Parliament influence policy?” Journal of Legislative Studies, forthcoming 2010.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, Tannenbaum, Eric, Fording, Richard, Hearl, Derek, Kim, Hee Min, McDonald, Michael and Mendes, Silvia. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Parties, Electors and Governments: 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce, Ferejohn, John and Fiorina, Morris. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, A.C. and Trivedi, P.K.. 1998. Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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): 417–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carty, R. Kenneth, Young, Lisa and Cross, William P.. 2000. Rebuilding Canadian Party Politics. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Chester, Daniel N. and Bowring, Nona. 1962. Questions in Parliament. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D. and Kornberg, Allan. 1992. “Do National Elections Affect Perceptions of MP Responsiveness? A Note on the Canadian Case.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17: 182204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, Aage R. 1973. How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Crimmins, James E. and Nesbitt-Larking, Paul. 1996. “Canadian Prime Ministers in the House of Commons.” Journal of Legislative Studies 2 (3): 145–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel and Feddersen, Timothy. 1998. “Cohesion in Legislatures and the Vote of Confidence Procedure.” American Political Science Review 92: 611621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Docherty, David Campbell. 1997. Mr. Smith Goes to Ottawa : Life in the House of Commons. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Murray. 1964. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Murray. 1985. “Political Language and Political Reality.” Political Science and Politics 18: 1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1978. “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Behavior: A Reexamination of the Miller-Stokes Representation Data.” American Journal of Political Science 22: 511535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1990. “Roll Calls, Reputations, and Representation in the U.S. Senate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 15(4): 623642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B. and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. and Wright, Gerald C.. 1980. “Policy Representation of Constituent Interests.” Political Behaviour 2(1): 91106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. and Wright, Gerald C.. 1997. “Voters, Candidates, and Issues in Congressional Elections.” In Congress Reconsidered, ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I.. 6th ed.Washington DC: C.Q. Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. and Wright, Gerald C.. 2000. “Representation of Constitution Ideology in Congress.” In Continuity and Change in House Elections, ed. Brady, David W., Cogan, John F. and Fiorina, Morris P.. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C. and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1974. Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Franklin, Mark N. and Norton, Philip, ed. 1993. Parliamentary Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franks, C.E.S. 1987. The Parliament of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, Brian. 1998. “The Impersonal Vote? Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage in British Elections, 1950–1992.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (2): 167–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hébert, Chantal. 2002. “Harper takes pragmatic approach to Quebec,” Toronto Star, 26 April A25.Google Scholar
Heitshusen, Valeri, Young, Garry and Wood, David M.. 2005. “Electoral Context and MP Constituency Focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 3245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Highton, Benjamin and Rocca, Michael S.. 2005. “Beyond the Roll-Call Arena: The Determinants of Position Taking in Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 58(2): 303–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbe, J. M. 2007. Negative binomial regression. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon. 2002. “Parliamentary Behavior with Two Principals: Preferences, Parties and Voting in the European Parliament.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 688–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, Michael. 1998. “Predictable and Unpredictable Policy Windows: Institutional and Exogenous Correlates of Canadian Federal Agenda-Setting.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 31 (3): 495524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John D. 1996. “The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies.” American Political Science Review 90 (2): 269–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, Patricia A. 1982. “Collective Representation Reappraised.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 7 (1): 119–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingall, Rachel and Crisp, Brian. 2001. “Determinants of Home Style: The Many Incentives for Going Home in Columbia.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (3): 487512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Christopher. 2001. “Do Ideological Preferences Explain Parliamentary Behaviour: Evidence from Great Britain and Canada.” Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (4): 89126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 341–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1973. Congressmen's Voting Decisions. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Kornberg, Allan. 1966. “Caucus and Cohesion in Canadian Parliamentary Parties.” American Political Science Review 60: 8392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornberg, Allan. 1967. Canadian Legislative Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kornberg, Allan and Mishler, William. 1976. Influence in Parliament. Durham NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, James H. 1977. “District Competitiveness and Legislative Roll Call Behavior: A Reassessment of the Marginality Hypothesis.” American Journal of Political Science 20: 627–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, James H. 1978. “Representation and Elections: A Policy Analysis.” American Political Science Review 72: 165–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J. Scott and Freese, Jeremy. 2003. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Mallory, J. R. 1971. The Structure of Canadian Government. Toronto: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marleau, Robert and Montpetit, Camille. 2000. House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Ottawa: House of Commons.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: the Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 2001. “Observations on ‘Congress: The Electoral Connection’ a Quarter Century after Writing It.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34 (2): 251–52.Google Scholar
McCrone, Donald J. and Kuklinski, James H.. 1979. “The Delegate Theory of Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 23: 278300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57: 4556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Austin. 1994. “Backbench Influence: A Personal View.” Parliamentary Affairs 47 (4): 687704.Google Scholar
Mughan, Anthony and Scully, Roger. 1997. “Accounting for Change in Free Vote Outcomes in the House of Commons.” British Journal of Political Science 27 (4): 619–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nice, David C. 1983. “Representation in the States: Policymaking and Ideology.” Social Science Quarterly 64: 404–11.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1997. “The Puzzle of Constituency Service.” Journal of Legislative Studies 3 (2): 2949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, Philip. 1994. “The Growth of the Constituency Role of the MP.” Parliamentary Affairs 47 (4): 705–21.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I. and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1983. “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.” American Political Science Review 77: 175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penner, Erin, Blidook, Kelly and Soroka, Stuart. 2006. “Legislative Priorities and Public Opinion: Representation of Partisan Agendas in the Canadian House of Commons.” Journal of European Public Policy 16: 1006–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petry, Francois. 1999. “The Opinion-Policy Relationship in Canada.” Journal of Politics 61: 540–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petry, Francois and Mendelsohn, Matthew. 2004. “Public Opinion and Policy Making in Canada, 1995–2001.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (3): 505529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pool, Ithiel de Sola, Abelson, Robert P. and Popkin, Samuel L.. 1965. Candidates, Issues, and Strategies: A Computer Simulation of the 1960 and 1964 Presidential Elections. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rush, Michael. 2001. The Role of the Member of Parliament Since 1868: From Gentlemen to Players. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savoie, Donald J. 1999. Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Catherine R., Brady, David W., Brody, Richard A. and Ferejohn, John A.. 1990. “Linking Constituency Opinion and Senate Voting Scores: A Hybrid Explanation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 15 (4): 599621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. 2002a. Agenda-Setting Dynamics in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. 2002b. “Issue Attributes and Agenda-Setting by Media, the Public and Policymakers in Canada.” International Journal of a Public Opinion Research 14 (3): 264–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. and Wlezien, Christopher. 2004. “Opinion Representation and Policy Feedback: Canada in Comparative Perspective.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (3): 531–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. and Wlezien, Christopher. 2005. “Opinion-Policy Dynamics: Public Preferences and Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom.” British Journal of Political Science 35 (4): 665689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, John B. 1977. The Canadian House of Commons: Procedure and Reform. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Walter J. 1979. “Measuring Constituency-Representative Linkages: Problems and Prospects.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 4 (4): 623–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strom, Kaare. 1997. “Rules, Reasons, and Routines: Legislative Roles in Parliamentary Democracies.” Journal of Legislative Studies 3 (1): 155–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studlar, Donley and McAllister, Ian. 1996. “Constituency Activity and Representational Roles among Australian Legislators.” Journal of Politics 58 (1): 6990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weale, Albert. 1999. Democracy. New York: St. Martin's.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Ronald E., Hopkins, Anne H., Mezey, Michael L. and Munger, Frank. 1972. “Computer Simulation of State Electorates.” Public Opinion Quarterly 36: 4965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Ronald E. and Shaffer, William R.. 1972. “Public Opinion and American State Policy Making.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 16: 633–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissberg, Robert. 1978. “Collective vs. Dyadic Representation in Congress.” American Political Science Review 72: 535–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Frank L. and Wiste, Richard. 1976. “Party Cohesion in the French National Assembly: 1958–1973.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 1: 467–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39: 9811000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1996. “Dynamics of Representation: The Case of U.S. Spending on Defence.” British Journal of Political Science 26: 81103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 2004. “Patterns of Representation: Dynamics of Public Preferences and Policy,Journal of Politics 66: 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher and Soroka, Stuart. 2007. “The Relationship between Public Opinion and Policy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, ed. Dalton, Russel J. and Lingemann, Hans-Dieter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, David M. and Pitzer, Jack T.. 1982. “Comparing Parliamentary Voting on European Issues in France and Britain.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 7: 101–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 1989a. “Policy Voting in the US Senate: Who is Represented?Legislative Studies Quarterly 14: 465–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 1989b. “Level-of-Analysis Effects on Explanations of Voting: The Case of US Senate Elections.” British Journal of Political Science 18: 381–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. and Berkman, Michael B.. 1986. “Candidates and Policy in US Senatorial Elections.” American Political Science Review 80: 576–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Constituency Influence in Parliament
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Constituency Influence in Parliament
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Constituency Influence in Parliament
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? *