Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:35:53.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynastic Politicians: Theory and Evidence from Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2015

YASUSHI ASAKO ,
TAKESHI IIDA ,
TETSUYA MATSUBAYASHI  and
MICHIKO UEDA
YASUSHI ASAKO*
Affiliation:
School of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan
TAKESHI IIDA
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, Doshisha University, Kyoto, [email protected]
TETSUYA MATSUBAYASHI
Affiliation:
Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University, [email protected]
MICHIKO UEDA
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Syracuse University, NY, [email protected]
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dynastic politicians, defined as those whose family members have also served in the same position in the past, occupy a sizable portion of offices in many parts of the world. We develop a model of how dynastic politicians with inherited political advantages affect electoral outcomes and policy choices. Our model predicts that, as compared with non-dynastic legislators, dynastic legislators bring more distributions to the district, enjoy higher electoral success, and harm the economic performance of the districts, despite the larger amount of distributive benefits they bring. We test the implications of the model using data from Japan between 1997 and 2007.

Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 16 , Issue 1: Who Does or Does Not Respond to Whom or What in a Democracy? The Case of Japan , March 2015 , pp. 5 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Asano, Masahiko (2006), Shimin Shakai ni Okeru Seido Kaikaku, Tokyo: Keio University Press.Google Scholar
Baron, David P. and Ferejohn, John A. (1989), ‘Bargaining in Legislatures’, American Political Science Review, 83 (4): 1181–206.Google Scholar
Bennedsen, Morten, Nielsen, Kasper Meisner, Perez-Gonzalez, Francisco, and Wolfenzon, Daniel (2007), ‘Inside the Family Firm: The Role of Families in Succession Decisions and Performance’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (2): 647–91.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy (2005), ‘Political Selection’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19 (3): 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy and Coate, Stephen (1997), ‘An Economic Model of Representative Democracy’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (1): 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy, Persson, Torsten, and Sturn, Daniel (2010), ‘Political Competition, Policy and Growth: Theory and Evidence from United States’, Review of Economic Studies, 77: 1329–52.Google Scholar
Camp, Roderic Ai (1995), Political Recruitment across Two Centuries: Mexico, 1884–1991, 1st edn, Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Caselli, Francesco and Morelli, Massimo (2004), ‘Bad Politicians’, Journal of Public Economics, 88 (3–4): 759–82.Google Scholar
Caselli, Francesco, Esquivel, Gerardo, and Lefort, Fernando (1996), ‘Reopening the Convergence Debate: A New Look at Cross-Country Growth Empirics’, Journal of Economic Growth, 1 (3): 363–89.Google Scholar
Chattopadhyay, Raghabendra and Duflo, Esther (2004), ‘Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India’, Econometrica, 72(September): 1409–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chirico, Danilo and Lupoli, Raffaele (2008), Onorevoli Figli Di, Rinascita.Google Scholar
Clubok, Alfred B, Wilensky, Norman M., and Berghorn, Forrest J. (1969), ‘Family Relationships, Congressional Recruitment, and Political Modernization’, Journal of Politics, 31 (4): 1035–62.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. (1987), ‘Electoral Equilibrium under Alternative Voting Institutions’, American Journal of Political Science, 31 (1): 82–108.Google Scholar
Dal Bo, Ernesto, Dal Bo, Pedro, and Snyder, Jason (2009), ‘Political Dynasties’,Review of Economic Studies, 76: 115–42.Google Scholar
Feinstein, Brian D. (2010), ‘The Dynasty Advantage: Family Ties in Congressional Elections’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 35 (4): 571–98.Google Scholar
Gehlbach, Scott, Sonin, Konstantin, and Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina (2010), ‘Businessman Candidates’. American Journal of Political Science, 54 (3): 718–36.Google Scholar
Hess, Stephen (1966), America's Political Dynasties from Adams to Kennedy, 1st edn, Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Horiuchi, Yusaku and Saito, Jun (2003), ‘Reapportionment and Redistribution: Consequences of Electoral Reform in Japan’, American Journal of Political Science, 47 (4): 669–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iida, Takeshi, Matsubayashi, Tetsuya, and Ueda, Michiko (2010), ‘Seshu Giin no Jisshou Bunseki (Empirical Analysis of Dynastic Legislators)’, Senkyo Kenkyu (Japanese Journal of Electoral Studies), 26 (2): 139–53.Google Scholar
Ishibashi, Michihiro and Reed, Steven R. (1992), ‘Second-Generation Diet Members and Democracy in Japan: Hereditary Seats’, Asian Survey, 32 (4): 366–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Benjamin F. and Olken, Benjamin A. (2005), ‘Do Leaders Matter? National Leadership and Growth since World War II’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120 (3): 835–64.Google Scholar
Kabashima, Ikuo (2000), Gendai Nihon no Seijikazo, Tokyo: Bokutaku sha.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. (1949), Southern Politics in State and Nation, Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Levitt, Steven D. (1996), ‘How Do Senators Vote? Disentangling the Role of Voter Preferences, Party Affiliation, and Senator Ideology’, American Economic Review, 86 (3): 425–41.Google Scholar
Lublin, David (1997), The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D. and Riezman, Raymond (1992), ‘Seniority in Legislatures’, American Political Science Review, 86 (4): 951–65.Google Scholar
Mendoza, Ronald U., Beja, L. Edsel, Venida, Victor S., and Barua, Yapm David (2012), ‘Inequality in Democracy: Insights from an Empirical Analysis of Political Dynasties in the 15th Philippine Congress’, Philippine Political Science Journal, 33 (2): 132–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizusaki, Setsufumi and Yuki Mori (Various years), JED-M database.Google Scholar
Morelli, Massimo (2004), ‘Party Formation and Policy Outcomes under Different Electoral Systems’, Review of Economic Studies, 71(July): 829–53.Google Scholar
Osborne, Martin and Slivinski, Al (1996), ‘A Model of Political Competition with Citizen Candidates’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111 (1): 65–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Torsten and Tabellini, Guido (2000), Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel M. (2012), ‘Succeeding in Politics: Dynasties in Democracies’, Ph.D. thesis, The University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Taniguchi, Naoko (2008), ‘Diet Members and Seat Inheritance’, in Martin, Sherry and Steel, Gill (eds.), Democratic Reform in Japan: Assessing the Impact, Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.Google Scholar