Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-m4fzj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-05T09:53:23.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflict, choice or geography? Explaining patterns of democracy in continental Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2026

Julian Bernauer  and
Adrian Vatter
Julian Bernauer
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, University of Berne, Switzerland
Adrian Vatter
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, University of Berne, Switzerland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ‘character’ of democracy is regularly summarised using political‐institutional measures of, for instance, ‘consensus’ or ‘majoritarian’ democracy. Yet, there is little quantitative‐comparative research on the origins of such configurations. Drawing on literature on endogenous institutions and constitutional design, this article proposes a model for the explanation of empirical patterns of democracy. Using a novel database of 26 continental (neighbouring) European democracies and Bayesian spatial modelling, the results indicate that while today's empirical patterns of democracy in terms of proportional power diffusion can be traced back to waves of democratisation rather than historical partisan power configurations, decentral power diffusion can partially be explained by socio‐structural factors, and spatial dependencies exist for all variants of power diffusion.

Keywords

patterns of democracyconstitutional designendogenous institutionselectoral reformspatial regression

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
European Journal of Political Research , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , May 2017 , pp. 251 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 European Consortium for Political Research

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adler, B. (2006). Die Entstehung der direkten Demokratie. Das Beispiel der Landsgemeinde Schwyz 1789–1866. Zürich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung.Google Scholar
Anckar, D. (2008). Microstate democracy: Majority or consensus; Diffusion or problem‐solving? Democratisation 15(1): 67–85.10.1080/13510340701768158Google Scholar
Anderson, C.J. & Guillory, C.A. (1997). Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross‐national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review 91(1): 66–81.10.2307/2952259Google Scholar
Anderson, J.J. (2002). Europeanization and the transformation of the democratic polity, 1945–2000. Journal of Common Market Studies 40(5): 792–822.Google Scholar
Andrews, J.T. & Jackman, R.W. (2005). Strategic fools: Electoral rule choice under extreme uncertainty. Electoral Studies 24(1): 65–84.10.1016/j.electstud.2004.03.002Google Scholar
Armingeon, K. (2002). The effects of negotiation democracy: A comparative analysis. European Journal of Political Research 41(1): 81–105.10.1111/1475-6765.00004Google Scholar
Auer, A. (ed.) (1996). Die Ursprünge der Schweizerischen Direkten Demokratie. Basel: Helbing + Lichtenhahn.Google Scholar
Bawn, K. (1993). The logic of institutional preferences: German electoral law as a social choice outcome. American Journal of Political Science 37(4): 965–989.10.2307/2111539Google Scholar
Benoit, K. (2002). The endogeneity problem in electoral studies: A critical re‐examination of Duverger's mechanical effect. Electoral Studies 21(1): 35–46.10.1016/S0261-3794(00)00033-0Google Scholar
Benoit, K. (2004). Models of electoral system change. Electoral Studies 23(3): 363–389.10.1016/S0261-3794(03)00020-9Google Scholar
Benoit, K. (2007). Electoral laws as political consequences: Explaining the origins and change of electoral institutions. Annual Review of Political Science 10: 363–390.10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.101608Google Scholar
Benz, A. & Colino, C. (2011). Constitutional change in federations: A framework for analysis. Regional and Federal Studies 21(4–5): 381–406.10.1080/13597566.2011.578886Google Scholar
Bernauer, J. & Vatter, A. (2012). Can't get no satisfaction with the Westminster model? Winners, losers and the effects of consensual and direct democratic institutions on satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research 51(4): 435–468.10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02007.xGoogle Scholar
Birch, S. et al. (2002). Embodying democracy: Electoral system design in post‐communist Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781403914248Google Scholar
Blais, A. & Massicotte, L. (1997). Electoral formulas: A macroscopic perspective. European Journal of Political Research 32(1): 107–129.10.1111/1475-6765.00334Google Scholar
Boix, C. (1999). Setting the rules of the game: The choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies. American Political Science Review 93(3): 609–624.10.2307/2585577Google Scholar
Bogaards, M. (2000). The uneasy relationship between empirical and normative types in consociational theory. Journal of Theoretical Politics 12(4): 395–423.Google Scholar
Börzel, T.A. (1999). Towards convergence in Europe? Institutional adaption to Europeanization in Germany and Spain. Journal of Common Market Studies 37(4): 573–596.10.1111/1468-5965.00197Google Scholar
Burgess, M. (2006). Comparative federalism: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203015476Google Scholar
Cairney, P. & Widfeldt, A. (2015). Is Scotland a Westminster‐style majoritarian democracy or a Scandinavian‐style consensus democracy? A comparison of Scotland, the UK and Sweden. Regional and Federal Studies 25(1): 1–18.10.1080/13597566.2014.958818Google Scholar
Collier, R.B. & Collier, D. (2002). Shaping the political arena: Critical junctures, the labour movement and regime dynamics in Latin America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Colomer, J.M. (2005). It's parties that choose electoral systems (or, Duverger's laws upside down). Political Studies 53(1): 1–21.10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00514.xGoogle Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (2002). How democratic is the American Constitution? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. & Tufte, E.R. (1973). Size and democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Elazar, D.J. (1987). Exploring federalism. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J., Offe, C. & Preuss, U.K. (1998). Institutional design in post‐communist societies: Rebuilding the ship at sea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511628351Google Scholar
Erk, J. (2007). Explaining federalism: State, society and congruence in Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany and Switzerland. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203940495Google Scholar
Fearon, J.D. (2003). Ethnic and cultural diversity by country. Journal of Economic Growth 8(2):195–222.Google Scholar
Fish, S.M. & Kroenig, M. (2009). The handbook of national legislatures: A global survey. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511575655Google Scholar
Flinders, M. (2010). Democratic drift: Majoritarian modification and democratic anomie in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franzese, R.J. & Hays, J.C. (2008). Interdependence in comparative politics: Substance, theory, empirics, substance. Comparative Political Studies 41(4–5): 742–780.10.1177/0010414007313122Google Scholar
Freitag, M. & Vatter, A. (2009). Patterns of democracy: A sub‐national analysis of the German Länder. Acta Politica 44(4): 410–438.10.1057/ap.2009.22Google Scholar
Ganghof, S. (2005). Normative Modelle, institutionelle Typen und beobachtbare Verhaltensmuster: Ein Vorschlag zum Vergleich parlamentarischer Demokratien. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 46(3): 406–431.10.1007/s11615-005-0278-xGoogle Scholar
Ganghof, S. (2012). Resilient patterns of democracy. A comparative analysis. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 6(2/Supplement): 1–22.Google Scholar
Gerring, J. & Thacker, S.C. (2008). A centripetal theory of democratic governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511756054Google Scholar
Ginsburg, T. & Versteeg, M. (2014). Why do countries adopt constitutional review? Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 30(3): 587–622.10.1093/jleo/ewt008Google Scholar
Giuliani, M. (2016). Patterns of democracy reconsidered: The ambiguous relationship between corporatism and consensualism. European Journal of Political Research 55(1): 22–42.10.1111/1475-6765.12117Google Scholar
Hèritier, A. (2007). Explaining institutional change in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298129.001.0001Google Scholar
Hooghe, L., Marks, G. & Schakel, A.H. (2010). The rise of regional authority: A comparative study of 42 democracies. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203852170Google Scholar
Horowitz, D.L. (1985). Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jackman, S. (2009). Bayesian analysis for the social sciences. Chichester: Wiley.10.1002/9780470686621Google Scholar
Katz, R.S. (2005). Why are there so many (or so few) electoral reforms? In Gallagher, M. & Mitchell, P. (eds), The politics of electoral systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kostadinova, T. (2003). Voter turnout dynamics in post‐communist Europe. European Journal of Political Research 42(6): 741–759.10.1111/1475-6765.00102Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1977). Democracy in plural societies: A comparative exploration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty‐six countries, 1st edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty‐six countries, 2nd edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Löwenstein, K. (1964). Der britische Parlamentarismus. Entstehung und Gestalt. Reinbeck: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. & Thelen, K. (2009). A theory of gradual institutional change. In Mahoney, J. & Thelen, K. (eds), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511806414Google Scholar
North, D.C. & Weingast, B.R. (1989). Constitutions and commitment: The evolution of institutions governing public choice in seventeenth‐century England. Journal of Economic History 49(4): 803–832.10.1017/S0022050700009451Google Scholar
Pfetsch, F.R. (1990). Ursprünge der zweiten Republik: Prozesse der Verfassungsgebung in den Westzonen und in der Bundesrepublik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.10.1007/978-3-322-83568-0Google Scholar
Powell, G.B. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A. (2009). Conquered or granted? A history of suffrage extensions. British Journal of Political Science 39(2): 291–321.10.1017/S0007123408000434Google Scholar
Rhodes, R.A.W., Wanna, J. & Weller, P. (2011). Comparing Westminster. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, W.H. (1964). Federalism: Origin, operation, significance. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Roller, E. (2005). The performance of democracies: Political institutions and public policies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0199286426.001.0001Google Scholar
Schmidt, M.G. (2010). Demokratietheorien, 5th edn. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
Selb, P. (2006). Räumliche Regressionsmodelle. In Behnke, J. et al. (eds), Methoden der Politikwissenschaft: Neuere qualitative und quantitative Analyseverfahren. Baden‐Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Shvetsova, O. (2003). Endogenous selection of institutions and their exogenous effects. Constitutional Political Economy 14(3): 191–212.Google Scholar
Simeon, R. (2009). Constitutional design and change in federal systems: Issues and questions. Publius 39(2): 241–261.10.1093/publius/pjp001Google Scholar
Taagepera, R. (2003). Arend Lijphart's dimensions of democracy: Logical connections and institutional design. Political Studies 51(1): 1–19.10.1111/1467-9248.00409Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (1990). Nested games: Rational choice in comparative politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Vatter, A. (2002). Kantonale Demokratien im Vergleich: Entstehungsgründe, Interaktionen und Wirkungen politischer Institutionen in den Schweizer Kantonen. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.10.1007/978-3-322-99323-6Google Scholar
Vatter, A., Flinders, M. & Bernauer, J. (2014). A global trend towards democratic convergence? A Lijphartian analysis of advanced democracies. Comparative Political Studies 47(6): 903–929.10.1177/0010414013488553Google Scholar
Welzel, C. (2013). Freedom rising. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139540919Google Scholar
Woodberry, R.D. (2012). The missionary roots of liberal democracy. American Political Science Review 106(2): 244–274.10.1017/S0003055412000093Google Scholar