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.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2009
This article tests hypotheses about the electoral support of Canada's first—and perhaps most significant—third party. It demonstrates that two micro-economic concepts, price elasticity of demand and efficiency of production, describe accurately the material base of Progressive party support. It thereby subsumes the study of agrarian parties and voting behaviour within a more general (public choice) framework. It also clarifies and substantiates important elements of the conventional wisdom about Progressive support, and it suggests means which might also shed new light upon the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and Social Credit.
Cet article vérifie certaines hypothèses au sujet de l'appui électoral du premier—et peut-être du plus important—tiers parti au Canada. Il démontre que deux concepts micro-économiques, l'élasticité des prix de la demande et l'efficacité de l'appui au parti progressiste. Il inclut ainsi l'étude des partis agraires et du comportement électoral à l'intérieur d'une grille d'analyse plus générate (« public choice »). De plus, l'article établit le bien-fondé et clarifie d'importants éléments de la sagesse conventionnelle au sujet de l'appui progressiste et suggère des moyens qui pourraient jeter un éclairage nouveau sur le CCF et le Crédit social.
1 Morton, William L., The Progressive Party in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1950), vii–x, 266–95.Google Scholar
2 Finkel, Alvin, The Social Credit Phenomenon in Alberta (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laycock, David, Populism and Democratic Thought in the Canadian Prairies, 1910 to 1945 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Lipset, S. M., Agrarian Socialism: The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation in Saskatchewan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1950)Google Scholar; Macpherson, C. B., Democracy in Alberta: Social Credit and the Party System (2nd ed.; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962)Google Scholar; and Morton, , The Progressive Party.Google Scholar
3 One of a very few studies which focusses upon the Progressive (United Farmers of Alberta) vote is Grayson, J. Paul and Grayson, L. M., “The Social Base of Interwar Political Protest in Urban Alberta,” this Journal 7 (1974), 289–313.Google Scholar
4 Fisher, Stephen L., The Minor Parties of the Federal Republic of Germany: Toward a Comparative Theory of Minor Parties (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974), 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Key, V. O., Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups (5th ed.; New York: Crowell, 1964), 49–50, 279Google Scholar; Janda, Kenneth, A Conceptual Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Political Parties (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1970), 50Google Scholar; Ranney, Austin and Kendall, Willmoore, Democracy and the American Party System (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1956), 453–55Google Scholar; Studiar, Donley T. and McAllister, Ian, “Protest and Survive? Alliance Support in the 1983 British General Election,” Political Studies 35 (1987), 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Lipset, , Agrarian Socialism, 26–30, 62Google Scholar, and Morton, , The Progressive Party, 266.Google Scholar
6 For an overview of these studies, see Lewis-Beck, Michael S., “Agrarian Political Behavior in the United States,” American Journal of Political Science 21 (1977), 543–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960), 416, 420Google Scholar; see also McGuire, Robert A., “Economic Causes of Late Nineteenth-Century Unrest: New Evidence,” Journal of Economic History 41 (1981), 835–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Campbell, et al. , The American Voter, 416, 419Google Scholar; see also Rosenstone, Steven J., Behr, Roy L. and Lazarus, Edward H., Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to Major Party Failure (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 165Google Scholar; Sigelman, Lee, “Politics, Economics and the American Farmer: The Case of 1980,” Rural Sociology 48 (1983), 367–85Google Scholar; and Sigelman, Lee, “Economic Pressure and the Farm Vote: The Case of 1984,” Rural Sociology 52 (1987), 151–63.Google Scholar
9 Green, Donald Philip, “The Price Elasticity of Mass Preferences,” American Political Science Review 86 (1992), 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Heady, Earl O., The Roots of the Farm Problem (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1965).Google Scholar
11 Lipsey, Richard G., An Introduction to Positive Economics (2nd ed.; London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1966), 116–23.Google Scholar
12 See, for example, Stone, Richard, The Measurement of Consumers' Expenditure and Behaviour in the United Kingdom 1920–1938 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954).Google Scholar
13 Economic historians have made this point implicitly rather than explicitly. See Mayhew, Anne, “A Reappraisal of Farm Protest Movements in the U.S.,” Journal of Economic History 32 (1972), 464–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McGuire, , “Economic Causes of Late-Nineteenth-Century Unrest,” 835–49Google Scholar; and Williams, Jeffrey C., “Economics and Politics: Voting Behavior in Kansas during the Populist Decade,” Explorations in Economic History 18 (1981), 233–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Lipset, , Agrarian Socialism, 35.Google Scholar
15 Kramer, Gerald, “Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voter Behavior, 1896–1964,” American Political Science Review 65 (1971), 131–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Rosenstone, et al. , Third Parties in America.Google Scholar
16 Young, Walter D., Democracy and Discontent: Progressivism, Socialism and Social Credit in the Canadian West (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1969), 1–14.Google Scholar
17 The figure plots series J49 (the Wholesale Price Index of Total Field Crops) and series J52 (the Wholesale Price Index of All Animal Products). The source of the data is Urquhart, M. C. and Buckley, K. A. H., eds., Historical Statistics of Canada (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 295.Google Scholar
18 Mazmanian, Daniel, Third Parties in Presidential Elections (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1974), 27, 71 and 137Google Scholar; see also Fisher, , The Minor Parties of the Federal Republic of Germany, 27Google Scholar; Kramer, , “Short-Term Fluctuations,” 136Google Scholar; and Rosenstone, et al. , Third Parties in America, 134–38.Google Scholar
19 Allen, Richard, The Social Passion: Religion and Social Reform in Canada, 1914–28 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971).Google Scholar
20 Ibid., 201, 349. Others (Lipset, , Agrarian Socialism, 25, 164–69Google Scholar; Grayson, and Grayson, , “The Social Base of Interwar Political Protest,” 295, 303Google Scholar; and Morton, , The Progressive Party, 39Google Scholar) have also suggested that persons of British (and British-Canadian) descent tended to support the Progressive party. The measure of British ethnicity, however, is strongly related to the measure of religion; accordingly, and on the advice of one of the Journal's referees, the measure of ethnicity has been dropped from the analysis.
21 Lipset, , Agrarian Socialism, 26Google Scholar, and Grayson, and Grayson, , “The Social Base of Interwar Political Protest,” 312.Google Scholar
22 Lipset, , Agrarian Socialism, 21–36Google Scholar, and Morton, , The Progressive Party, 11–12.Google Scholar
23 I acknowledge the Journal's anonymous referee who brought the gist of this paragraph to my attention.
24 Pinard, Maurice, The Rise of a Third Parry: A Study in Crisis Politics (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1975), 91–119, 136–61.Google Scholar
25 Ibid., 100.
26 Lipset, , Agrarian Socialism, 29.Google Scholar
27 The source of these data is the official Report of the Chief Electoral Officer. The reports appeared as Sessional Papers of the House of Commons in the year which followed the election.
28 Campbell, et al. , The American Voter, 420.Google Scholar
29 I am grateful to one of the Journal's anonymous reviewers for suggesting this point to me.
30 For reviews of these studies, see Lipset, , Agrarian Socialism, 10–14Google Scholar, and Sharp, Paul F., The Agrarian Revolt in Western Canada (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1948).Google Scholar
31 Morton, , The Progressive Party, 271.Google Scholar
32 Haitovsky, Y., Regression Estimation from Grouped Observations (London: Griffin, 1973)Google Scholar, chap. 5.
33 Pindyck, Robert S. and Rubinfeld, Daniel L., Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts (2nd ed.; Singapore: McGraw-Hill, 1981), 278–93.Google Scholar
34 See Rosenstone, et al. , Third Parties in AmericaGoogle Scholar, chap. 8.
35 A discussion and justification of the weighting procedure appears in Hanushek, Eric A. and Jackson, John E., Statistical Methods for Social Scientists (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 195–98.Google Scholar
36 Achen, Christopher, The Statistical Analysis of Quasi-Experiments (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 73–95Google Scholar; Heckman, John, “Sample Selection Bias as Specification Error,” Econometrica 47 (1979), 153–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Nelson, Forrest D., “Censored Regression Models with Unobserved Stochastic Censoring Thresholds,” Journal of Econometrics 6 (1977), 309–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 Achen, , The Statistical Analysis of Quasi-Experiments, 99.Google Scholar
38 See, for example, Mazmanian, , Third Parties in Presidential Elections, 77–78.Google Scholar
39 Pinard, , The Rise of a Third Party, 136–61.Google Scholar
