Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-jhf8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-28T00:25:17.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Electoral System and Japan's Partial Transformation: Party System Consolidation Without Policy Realignment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2016

Ethan Scheiner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Japan's electoral system, which emphasizes first-past-the-post, single-member district rules, has led the country's party system to become consolidated around the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). At the same time, Japan's electoral rules also made it likely that the two parties would not differ markedly in their policy positions, as well as hinder the emergence of new partisan alignments that could offer more clearly distinct policy options. Put differently, Japan's electoral rules have encouraged the development of what is essentially a two-party system, but one in which party alternation in power need not produce sharp policy change.

Keywords

electoral systemsJapanpolicy changeparty realignmentparty alternation in powerreformLiberal Democratic Party (LDP)Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)DownsDuverger

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

Adams, James F., Kawasumi, Jed, and Scheiner, Ethan. 2010. “Running on Character or Running on Policy? An Analysis of Japanese Candidates' Campaign Platforms.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 2–5.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John, Dorabantu, Sinziana, and Fernández, Marco Antonio. 2009. “Perceptions of Party Positions on the Left-Right Scale.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, Canada, September 3–6.Google Scholar
Buttice, Matthew K., and Stone, Walter J.. Forthcoming. “Candidates Matter: Policy and Quality Differences in 2006.” Journal of Politics. Google Scholar
Carey, John. 2007. “Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 51, 1: 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John, and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies 14: 417–439.Google Scholar
Chhibber, Pradeep, and Kollman, Ken. 1998. “Party Aggregation and the Number of Parties in India and the United States.” American Political Science Review 92, 2: 329–342.Google Scholar
Chhibber, Pradeep, and Kollman, Ken. 2004. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold, Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne C., and Whiteley, Paul M.. 2004. Political Choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold, Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne C., and Whiteley, Paul M.. 2009. Performance Politics and the British Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daily Yomiuri. Various issues.Google Scholar
Desposato, Scott W. 2006. “Parties for Rent? Ambition, Ideology and Party Switching in Brazil's Chamber of Deputies.” American Journal of Political Science 50, 1: 62–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Federico, Herron, Erik S., and Nishikawa, Misa. 2005. Mixed Electoral Systems: Contamination and Its Consequences. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gaunder, Alisa. 2012. “The DPJ and Women: The Limited Impact of the 2009 Alternation of Power on Policy and Governance.” Journal of East Asian Studies 12, 3: 441–466.Google Scholar
Green, Jane. 2007. “When Voters and Parties Agree: Valence Issues and Party Competition.” Political Studies 55, 3: 629–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Jane, and Hobolt, Sara. B.. 2008. “Owning the Issue Agenda: Explaining Party Strategies in British General Election Campaigns.” Electoral Studies 27, 3: 460–476.Google Scholar
Hirano, Shigeo. 2006. “Electoral Institutions, Hometowns, and Favored Minorities: Evidence from Japan's Electoral Reforms.” World Politics 59: 51–82.Google Scholar
Laakso, Markku, and Taagepera, Rein. 1979. “‘Effective’ Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 12, 1: 3–27.Google Scholar
Lipscy, Phillip Y. 2012. “A Casualty of Political Transformation? The Politics of Energy Efficiency in the Japanese Transportation Sector.” Journal of East Asian Studies 12, 3: 409–439.Google Scholar
Lipscy, Phillip Y., and Scheiner, Ethan. 2012. “Japan Under the DPJ: The Paradox of Political Change Without Policy Change.” Journal of East Asian Studies 12, 3: 311–322.Google Scholar
Maeda, Ko. 2008. “Re-examining the Contamination Effect of Japan's Mixed Electoral System Using the Treatment-Effects Model.” Electoral Studies 27: 723–731.Google Scholar
Martin, Sherry L. 2011. “Issue Evolution and Electoral Politics in Contemporary Japan.” In The Evolution of Japan's Party System: Politics and Policy in an Era of Institutional Change , ed. Schoppa, Leonard J.. Toronto: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
McElwain, Kenneth Mori. 2012. “The Nationalization of Japanese Elections.” Journal of East Asian Studies 12, 3: 323–350.Google Scholar
Moser, Robert G., and Scheiner, Ethan. 2012. Electoral Systems and Political Context. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, Diana Z., and Shomer, Yael. 2012. “Legislators' Motivations, Institutional Arrangements, and Changes in Partisan Affiliation: A Cross-National Analysis of Party Switching.” Paper presented at the Southern California Comparative Political Institutions (SC2PI) conference, February 3.Google Scholar
Pempel, T. J. 1998. Regime Shift: Comparative Dynamics of the Japanese Political Economy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pempel, T. J. 2010. “Between Pork and Productivity: The Collapse of the Liberal Democratic Party.” Journal of Japanese Studies 36: 227–254.Google Scholar
Pridham, Geoffrey. 1988. “The Social Democratic Party in Britain: Protest or New Political Tendency?” In When Parties Fail , ed. Lawson, Kay and Merkl, Peter H.. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Reed, Steven R. 2005. “Japan: Haltingly Toward a Two-Party System.” In The Politics of Electoral Systems , ed. Gallagher, Michael and Mitchell, Paul, 277–294. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reed, Steven R., Scheiner, Ethan, and Thies, Michael F.. 2012. “The End of LDP Dominance and the Rise of Party-oriented Politics in Japan.” Journal of Japanese Studies 38, 2: 353–375.Google Scholar
Reed, Steven R., and Thies, Michael F.. 2001. “The Consequences of Electoral Reform in Japan.” In Mixed-member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? ed. Shugart, Matthew Soberg and Wattenberg, Martin P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenbluth, Frances, and Thies, Michael. 2010. Japan Transformed: Political Change and Economic Restructuring. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, Akira. 2011. “Big Bang: Conservative Merger Expected from Political Supernova.” Asahi Shimbun Weekly Aera , March 2.Google Scholar
Scheiner, Ethan. 2006. Democracy Without Competition in Japan: Opposition Failure in a One-party Dominant State. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scheiner, Ethan. 2008. “Does Electoral System Reform Work? Electoral System Lessons from Reforms of the 1990s.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 161–181.Google Scholar
Scheiner, Ethan. 2011. “Evolution of Japan's Party System—Consolidation or Realignment?” Paper presented at the conference “Political Change in Japan II: One Step Forward, One Step Back,” Stanford University, February 4–5.Google Scholar
Scheiner, Ethan, and Tronconi, Filippo. 2011. “Unanticipated Consequences of Electoral Reform in Italy and Japan.” In A Natural Experiment on Electoral Law Reform: Evaluating the Long Run Consequences of 1990s Electoral Reform in Italy and Japan , ed. Giannetti, Daniela and Grofman, Bernard, 95–112. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Shimizu, Kay. 2012. “Electoral Consequences of Municipal Mergers.” Journal of East Asian Studies 12, 3: 381–408.Google Scholar
Singer, Matthew. Forthcoming. “Was Duverger Correct? Single-member District Election Outcomes in 54 Countries.” British Journal of Political Science. Google Scholar
Steel, Gill. 2008. “Policy Preferences and Party Platforms: What Voters Want vs. What Voters Get.” In Democratic Reform in Japan: Assessing the Impact , ed. Martin, Sherry L. and Steel, Gill. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Vowles, Jack, 2009. “The 2008 Election: Why National Won.” In New Zealand Government and Politics , 5th ed., ed. Miller, Raymond, 365–382. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yomiuri Shimbun. Various issues.Google Scholar